Civil Revision No. 3237 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3237 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: March 29 , 2010 Municipal Council Rajpura ......... Petitioner Versus M/s Image Marketing dCom. ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present Mr.Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. The main case is that the petitioner had given a contract dated 14.03.2006 to the respondent for constructing bus shelters, garbage dumps and for restoring unipoles on a BOT basis. After the respondents had made the investment, the order was passed curtailing the time limit of the contract from 5 years to 2 years purportedly under clause 14 of the contract which is to the following effect:- “That the allotment of the land by the M.C. to the bidder for the construction/erection of the bus shelter and others thereon with further permission to display advertisement thereon on the payment of the advertisement tax and all other restrictions is subject to all orders passed by the various Hon'ble Courts. Further if at any time during the period of this agreement, the Govt. and the Hon'ble Court or any other Tribunal orders the immediate stop of displaying of the advertisement on the Civil Revision No. 3237 of 2008(O&M) 2 structures/fixtures of the bus shelters covered by this agreement, the bidder shall not be entitled to any compensation and the bus shelters along with all material/fixtures shall continue to be the property of M.C. Rajpura District Patiala.” On 27.1.2010 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel seeks adjournment to place on record some order of the Government as per which the contract was alleged to have been permitted to be terminated on the ground that it violated the court orders. Adjourned to 15.03.2010.” Learned counsel has placed on record copy of the order dated 12.1.2007. There is no indication in the said order that the contract violated the Court orders. The trial court on the basis of the said stipulation declined the relief of temporary injunction to the respondent. The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, holding that no Court order had been shown which could be pressed into service to show that the contract to be awarded by the petitioner was in violation thereof. Learned counsel has placed on record copy of the order dated 12.1.2007. There is no indication in the said order that the contract violated the Court orders Consequently no ground is made out which could justify interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Revision Dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 29, 2010 sunita