CWP No.1120 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No.1120 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.01.2009 M/s. Ludhiana Outdoor Advertisers and others. ....Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh Present: Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the Caveator. ... J.S. Khehar, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by as many as seven petitioners - firms. All the petitioners - firms allege, that they are in the advertising business for a long time. They also allege, that they have successfully executed contracts of outdoor advertisement. Some of the petitioners - firms claim to be in the process of executing such works even at the present juncture. Express details about the nature of such works, which have been executed by the first three petitioners - firms have also been narrated in the writ petition. It is asserted, that petitioner No.1 has been executing outdoor advertisement contracts, even for the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, during the years 2001 to 2004. Such contracts are CWP No.1120 of 2009 2 also alleged to have been executed for the Municipal Council, Samrala, from the year 2003 to 2006. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 is executing a similar contract for the Municipal Council, Rajpura, which commenced in the year 2006 and is valid till 2011. Copies of the contracts referred to hereinabove, have been appended to the instant writ petition as Annexure P-1 collectively. Likewise, petitioner No.2 is stated to be in possession of advertisement rights given to it by M/s. MSK Projects India Ltd., for constructing the Modern Bus Terminal at Ludhiana, on BOT basis, by the State of Punjab. It is asserted, that the aforesaid contract is valid for eight years i.e. from the year 2008 to 2016. A copy of the aforesaid contract has been placed on the record of this case as Annexure P-3. Similarly, petitioner No.3 is stated to have a five years advertisement contact, with the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, valid from the year 2006 to 2011. Other petitioners are also stated to be engaged in similar activities as petitioners No.1 to 3. The grievance of the petitioners - firms emerges from an advertisement, which appeared in the Tribune dated 9.1.2009, through which the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, invited offers from “Advertising Agencies/Companies, Firms, individuals, for grant of License for advertisement right on overhead signages, 38 No., foot over bridges (4), Garbage Collection Centres (12), kiosks on street light poles, Pillars to Elevated Road, Unipoles, Bus Shelters, round about within the Municipal Corporation limits of Ludhiana”. The pointed grievance of the petitioners – firms, is against two out of the fifteen terms and conditions (Nos.11 and 12) stipulated in the advertisement dated 9.1.2009. The terms and conditions with which the petitioners - firms are aggrieved about, are being extracted hereunder: - CWP No.1120 of 2009 3 “11. Companies, firms, Agencies, individuals participating must have minimum similar experience of at least 5 different Civic Bodies in India for last 5 years. 12. Minimum turnover of the participating firm, individual, company, agency must not be less than Rs.1.00 crore per year continuously for the last 5 years.” It is alleged, that the aforesaid conditions of eligibility for the advertisement contract, are arbitrary and discriminatory, and are likely to cause loss of revenue to the State. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners - firms, that the clauses extracted hereinabove are arbitrary on account of the fact, that a large number of advertising firms which have been in the business of advertisement for a number of years, and have gained sufficient experience in the field of advertisement, have been excluded even from making an endeavour to bid for the contract of advertisement through the impugned advertisement dated 9.1.2009. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners - firms, that some of the petitioners - firms have even executed such like contracts for the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, and that, the Municipal Corporation is aware of their efficiency and viability. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners - firms, that excluding firms like the petitioners, even from participating in the tender process, must be considered to be mala fide, besides being arbitrary. The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, is in caveat before us. It is acknowledged by the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, that the conditions of eligibility stipulated in the advertisement dated 9.1.2009, render all the seven petitioners ineligible for participating in CWP No.1120 of 2009 4 the tender process. It is, however, submitted that it was imperative for the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, to stipulate the conditions which are subject matter of challenge at the hands of the petitioners - firms on account of the magnitude of the contract under reference. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the caveator, that the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, has not laid down any terms and conditions which can be described as arbitrary. In this behalf, it is pointed out that as many as six firms, which were eligible as per the terms and conditions stipulated hereinabove, have submitted their tenders for participating in the process of consideration. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners - firms, as have been noticed hereinabove. It is, however, not possible for us to arrive at the conclusion, that the action of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, in stipulating the terms and conditions extracted above, were arbitrary in any manner whatsoever. In the background of the magnitude of the contract, under reference, it was essential for the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, to ensure that the participating agencies/firms would be able to discharge the obligation vested in them, in the event of acceptance of their tender, faithfully. Since none of the petitioners – firms is eligible, it is apparent that six firms/agencies which have responded to the advertisement dated 9.1.2009, have a substantially long experience in the field of advertisement. Their earning capacity demonstrated from their eligibility also demonstrates their viability to be able to discharge the obligation, in case their bid is accepted. The sequence of facts narrated in the pleadings do not disclose any mala fides at the hands of any person and authority, nor the identity of the firm CWP No.1120 of 2009 5 which is likely to be favoured with the contract under reference has been revealed in the pleadings. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to accept even the plea of mala fides raised by the petitioners - firms against the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( Nawab Singh ) Judge. 23.01.2009 sk.