RSA No. 895 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 895 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2011. V-image Group .......Appellant Vs. Municipal Council, Rohtak ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was running his business under the name and style of V-Image Group. On 4.7.2005, the plaintiff had been permitted to construct and maintain the toilets at Palika Bazaar, Man Sarovar Park Corner and Medical Mor Corner, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. The work of construction and maintenance of toilets utility at Palika Bazaar was completed. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff had the right to display advertisement on the premises of the utility. It was also agreed that the structure could not be demolished or sublet by the Municipality. Despite repeated requests, the sites in RSA No. 895 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the area of Man Sarovar Park and Medical Mor Corner had not been made available to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed by plaintiff. Defendant, in its written statement, averred that the public was not happy with the services of the plaintiff and no certificate had been issued by the shopkeepers to the effect that the toilets were in good condition. Plaintiff was charging ` 2/- from every person, who was availing the facility, whereas the facility was to be provided free of cost. The agreement had already been cancelled vide office letter dated 27.12.2005 and information had been sent to the plaintiff in this regard. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, 1971? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. RSA No. 895 of 2011 (O&M) -3- After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the parties had entered into an agreement on 4.7.2005 vide which plaintiff was permitted to construct and maintain toilets utilities at Palika Bazaar, Man Sarovar Park Corner and Medical Mor Corner. However, the said agreement was later on cancelled by the defendant on 27.12.2005. The contract was required to be signed by two members and one of them was required to be the President or Vice President and the second was Executive Officer or signatory of the Municipal Council. Section 50 of The Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 reads as under:- “50. Mode of executing contracts and transfer of property – (1) Every contract made by or on behalf of the municipality whereof the value or amount exceeds five hundred rupees, shall be in writing and must be signed by two members, of whom the President or Vice- President shall be one, and also the Executive Officer of the Secretary of the municipality, as the case may be. (2) Every transfer of immovable property belonging to any municipality must be made by an instrument in writing executed by the President or Vice- President of the municipality, and Executive Officer or Secretary of the municipality, as the case may be. RSA No. 895 of 2011 (O&M) -4- (3) No contract or transfer of the description mentioned in this section executed otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of this section shall be binding on the committee.” However, in the present case the agreement in question was only signed by the Executive officer. Hence, the agreement executed between the parties was later on cancelled by the defendant. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 22, 2011 Gurpreet