IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12489 of 2009 POONAM MISHRA, WIFE OF DAYA NAND MISHRA, RESIDENT OF 202, VIJAY AMAN APARTMENT, KANKERBAG MAIN ROAD, P.S. KANKERBAGH, DISTRICT AND TOWN-PATNA AT PRESENT PROPRIETOR M/S PISCES MEDIA WORLD. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN, BIR CHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 3. CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN, BIR CHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. 4. CHIEF OF OPERATION, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN, BIR CHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 6.10.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. 3. Petitioner is the Proprietress of a firm which entered into an agreement with the Corporation for putting up side (advertisement) panels on the buses of the Corporation. The agreement has been cancelled by the impugned order bearing Memo No.2591 dated 7.9.2009 (Annexure-13) for the failure of the petitioner to deposit the fee as was - 2 - demanded under letter dated 4.2.2009 and 18.5.2009 amounting to Rs.1,32,910.48 paise and thereby the petitioner is said to have violated Clause-15(C) of the Agreement and for such violation, the agreement dated 6.2.2008 having been cancelled the security deposit has also been forfeited. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that the order tantamounts to violate her fundamental right to do business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is wholly arbitrary infracting Article 14 of the Constitution. According to him the action of the authorities of the Corporation to demand fee of Rs.1,32,910.48 paise is wholly arbitrary as demand is in regard to 233 buses whereas in fact the firm has been provided with 191 buses to fix the side panel. In this connection, reference is made to the letter bearing Memo No.2992 dated 26.6.2008 (Annexure-7) by which the Corporation had asked the petitioner to fix side (advertisement) panel over 233 buses without specifying the buses. With reference to the - 3 - said letter, it is further submitted that as the Corporation failed to specify 233 buses, the petitioner could not have fixed panel over 233 buses. Consequently, petitioner could not have been asked to pay the license fee for 233 buses amounting to Rs.1,32,910.48 paise. In support of the submission that the impugned order canceling the contract is violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANOTHER VERSUS EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS reported in 2004(3)SCC 553, Paragraph-23. With reference to the said judgment it is submitted that once the State or its instrumentality is a party to a contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably, which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute in regard to the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the case in hand, however, does not indicate any such - 4 - arbitray action on the part of the authorities of the Corporation. In this connection reference be made to Annexure-7 itself which indicates that the Chief of Operation of the Corporation identified the number of buses at different depots of the Corporation over which the petitioner was authorized to fix side (advertisement) panels and if the required number of buses were not available in the depot of the Corporation, petitioner could have requested the Chief of Operation to make available the buses. In the event, the clarification sought for was not coming forth from the Chief of Operation the Managing Director of the Corporation could have been requested. To me it appears, the petitioner ignored the direction contained in the letter dated 26.6.2008 (Annexure-7) as also failed to deposit the required license fee. The authorities of the Corporation thereafter had no option but to issue the directions contained in letter dated 4.2.2009 and 18.5.2009 referred to in the impugned order to deposit the fee. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the - 5 - petitioner has violated the relevant clause of the agreement and the authorities of the Corporation have rightly proceeded against him on the basis of the contents of the agreement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further challenged the impugned order on the ground of malafile as according to him even prior to issue of the impugned order dated 7.9.2009 cancelling the agreement with the petitioner for fixing side(advertisement) panels the corporation proceeded to issue fresh advertisement for empanelment of advertising/media communication agencies which is dated 6.9.2009 and is contained in Annexure-12 to this application and thereby the Corporation made it clear to all concerned that it was determined to cancel the agreement of the petitioner. Aforesaid submission of the petitioner also does not have any merit as if the petitioner was aggrieved with the advertisement he should have challenged the same. In any case, petitioner having not paid the license fee in spite of demand made under - 6 - letter dated 4.2.2009 and 18.5.2009, the authorities of the Corporation were aware about his conduct and if they proceeded to issue tender notice for empanelment of advertising/media communication agencies in the opinion of this Court nothing wrong was committed by the authorities. 5. In view of my findings recorded in paragraphs-3 and 4 of this order, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. ( V.N. Sinha,J.) N.H./