Sanjay Rana vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 414 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th April, 2004. We are doubtful whether the appeal is maintainable but since we do not find any merit in the entire case, therefore, we are not determining the question of maintainability in this appeal.

2. The appellant was permitted to display hoarding from 18th April, 2002. He was granted first renewal by the Divisional Commercial Manager, New Delhi by the order dated 13th October, 2003 from 28th April, 2003 to 22nd October, 2003.

The appellant was granted second extension from 23rd October, 2003 to 22nd April, 2004. The second extension has also expired and thereafter admittedly no extension has been granted to the appellant. The appellant has placed reliance on letter dated 18th April, 2002. According to the interpretation of the said letter by the appellant, the contract has been awarded to him for a period of one year but that has to be renewed in his favor from year to year in case he pays the revised rates, if any. According to him, the contract has been granted for ever. The learned Single Judge in his order has observed on this aspect and the relevant portion reads as under:-

"It appears to me rather odd that the contract for putting up hoardings has been awarded to the Appellant for an indefinite period and at a rate which is far lower than what has appeared from the market, as disclosed by learned counsel for the Respondents. Even otherwise, I have my reservations whether a contract such as the one said to be contained in the letter dated 18th April, 2002 and 19th December, 2003, which has been referred to by learned counsel for the Appellant would be permissible under the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution."

3. It may be pertinent to mention that open tenders had been invited and far higher rates have been offered. The appellant has also participated in the tender. The second extension granted to the appellant was up to the period 22nd April, 2004 and admittedly no extension thereafter has been granted.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. In our considered opinion, no interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed as such.

5. At this stage, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be permitted to remove his hoardings and iron structure within a week. We have carefully considered his prayer and grant one week's time to the appellant to remove his hoardings and iron structure. No request for grant of further extension shall be entertained.

6. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of. C.M.Nos. 5267 & 5268/2004 also stand disposed of.