Gujarat High Court
Sitemax Media Llp vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6347/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6347 of 2025
==========================================================
SITEMAX MEDIA LLP
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR G H VIRK(7392) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SUMAN J MOTLA, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI)
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner being an advertising agency who has never participated in a tender bearing No.AMCADVEST2324521 for putting up advertisement on potential gantries on public road owned by Municipal Corporation in all the four zones whereby vide work order dated 14.02.2024, contract was awarded to the respondent No.3 herein for a period of five years.
2. Mr.Hriday Buch, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Ahmedabad Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2023, in Clause 2(19), gantry advertisement is defined. Showing photographs at page 73, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to show what gantry means and other photographs are shown where advertisement is placed by the respondent No.3 to submit that it is a unipole and not an Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 04:07:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6347/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined advertisement on a gantry. As alleged in para 2, petitioner challenges the validity of work order dated 14.02.2024 in favour of respondent No.3 as it has indulged into rampant profiteering by putting up hoardings / unipoles across the city under the guise of award of tender for putting up only gantries.
2.1 He has further submitted that since gantry advertisement is defined, no advertisement should be allowed to be made by tenderer for advertisement on unipole whose tender is accepted for advertisement on gantry.
2.2 He has further submitted, drawing attention of the Court to the various litigations earlier also filed against respondent No.3, that with the blessings of the respondent - Corporation, such illegal action being permitted. It is further alleged in the petition that respondent No.3 is politically very strong and influential. Therefore, it is submitted that this Court by way of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in allowing respondent No.3 to put up hoarding under the guise of tender of gantries as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, a prayer is sought for to quash and set aside the work order issued in favour of respondent No.3 which is incorrectly mentioned in the prayer clause as dated 14.02.2014 instead of 14.02.2024.
3. As against that, Mr.G.H.Virk, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on advance copy submitted that this petition may not be entertained, that too, at the instance of the petitioner who has never participated in a tender floated for the purpose.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 04:07:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6347/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
At the same time, under the guise of filing public interest litigation for removal of hazardous hoardings and outdoor publicity and advertisement mediums on public road, Writ Petition (PIL) No.37 of 2024 was filed, may be by some individual, but that individual has also played the very same tune which is being played by the petitioner by way of this petition. Drawing attention of this Court to the judgment and order dated 23.08.2024, more particularly para 6 of the aforesaid writ petition, an attempt was made by that petitioner of PIL by way of rejoinder affidavit to submit that "advertisement hoardings are erected on a unipole as evident from photographs placed, but if record of the Corporation is called for to inspect the tender document, it would be clear as to whether tender was floated for gantry or unipole". He has further submitted that, apart from outcome of the PIL, which is rejected way back in August, 2024, by way of this petition, it appears to be an another attempt to agitate the very same grievance, that too, at the instance of the petitioner who has never participated in the tender. Though, according to his submission, whether tender is awarded for the purpose of advertisement on a gantry or a unipole and whether the respondent No.3 has put up its advertisement / hoarding on unipole, no complaint so far is made to the Corporation by the petitioner.
3.1 Not only that, according to the submission of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, work order for displaying advertisement to the respondent No.3 came to be issued on 14.02.2024. Despite one year and few months above that has passed, petitioner has never even tried to inform the respondent Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 04:07:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6347/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
- Corporation for such alleged breach by respondent No.3, so that Corporation can even physically examine the same. Therefore, he has submitted that the petition may not be entertained and he may be asked to avail appropriate remedy before appropriate forum where evidence would be led in proof thereof for alleged breach of the terms of the contract. In view of aforesaid submissions, he submitted that this petition is without any merit and therefore, it may be rejected.
4. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and going through the memo of petition, as also the annexures annexed along with it, what emerges therefrom is very interesting to note while dealing with this petition.
5. Not only the petitioner is the competitor who is running advertising agency as respondent No.3 is also in the very same business and having failed to participate in the tender process floated whereby work order dated 14.02.2024 came to be issued in favour of respondent No.3, petitioner cannot be heard to say that work order is not issued for the purpose for which tender was floated. However, from the work order, learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to show that said work order is issued for placing advertisement on a unipole. Not only that, despite work order having been issued in the month of February, 2024, filing of PIL for very same allegations under the guise of removal of hazardous hoarding made against advertisement companies which came to be dismissed in the month of August, 2024, instead of availing appropriate remedy before appropriate forum because it involves very disputed questions of fact to be gone into, he has filed present petition by producing certain Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 04:07:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6347/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined photographs. Based on such photographs, this Court cannot determine whether this advertisement is placed by X, Y or Z advertiser. Even the date on which such photographs are taken, that too, for display of advertisement of respondent No.3 herein and when that hoarding or advertisement was placed is also missing in the present petition. Not only that whether it is gantry or unipole that is also required to be proved, if at all tender is awarded for gantry advertisement. All these disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in this writ petition.
6. At the same time, bald allegations are made, without any contemporaneous record or necessary averments in the petition, about respondent No.3 being politically very strong and influential, it may not lead this Court to entertain such frivolous petition.
7. Over and above that, petitioner has failed to draw attention of the respondent - Corporation who have, according to him, failed to perform their statutory obligation not only under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, but under their advertisement policy, as also the contract entered into between advertiser as also the Corporation.
8. On all these facts, we are unable to entertain such petition and therefore, it is hereby summarily rejected.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) (J. L. ODEDRA, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 04:07:36 IST 2025