1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.182/2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3696 OF 2003 (M/s. Golchha Advertising Agency vs. State of Maharashtra and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND K.J. ROHEE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 8, 2008 Heard Shri Lohia, learned Counsel for the review petitioner. The review petition is directed against the order dated 24.2.2004 passed by this Court whereby Writ Petition No. 3696/2003 came to be dismissed. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. It is not in dispute that in Writ Petition No. 4175/2000, this Court passed order dated 20.7.2000 whereby directions were issued to the Municipal 2 Corporation, Nagpur as well as other Authorities to take up the process of removal of hoardings, which were located on the footpath touching the electric wires and erected in contravention of the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and Bombay Highway Act, 1933 as well as the hoardings, which were in contravention of bye-laws of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and IRC guidelines, after giving appropriate opportunity to the concerned persons. The impugned order further discloses that respondent Corporation in the year 2001 evolved new policy known as Outdoor Advertising Agency policy of 2001 and pursuant to the said policy, tender notice dated 23.12.2001 was published by the Corporation inviting tenders for allotment of site to erect hoardings. This Court by the impugned order dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner having participated in the tender process was estopped from canvassing grievance about the same. Similarly, request of the petitioner in the said petition for restoration of site to it on which its hoarding existed prior to passing of order 3 dated 20.7.2000 in Writ Petition No. 4175/2000 also was rejected in view of changed facts and circumstances. In the backdrop of the above referred facts and circumstances, in our view, no case is made out for showing indulgence in the present review petition. Hence, review petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj