Uttarakhand High Court
Media 24X7 Advertising Pvt. Ltd vs Nagar Nigam on 29 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3227-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J
HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J
WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 184 of 2025
Media 24X7 Advertising Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Nagar Nigam, Roorkee, District Haridwar and Others
...Respondents
Counsel for petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr.
Sagar Kothari, Advocates.
Counsel for respondents : Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate.
JUDGMENT :
(per HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Petitioner was granted advertising rights through
competitive bidding by Nagar Nigam, Roorkee for a period of
two years, vide order dated 26.07.2024.
2. As per the said order, petitioner was permitted to
advertise through hoarding/ billboards on 78 unipoles within
territorial limits of Nagar Nigam, Roorkee.
3. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged
another tender process initiated by Nagar Nigam vide
publication dated 17.08.2024, whereby, expression of
interest was invited for installation, maintenance and running
of traffic signal lights (2 way, 4 way and Blinker) at seven
locations within Nagar Nigam, Roorkee on Public Private
Partnership mode.
4. It is contended that, in lieu of setting up the
traffic lights, Nagar Nigam has permitted the bidder, who has
been selected for setting up the traffic signal lights to put up
2025:UHC:3227-DB
advertisement on seven unipoles in the middle or side of the
road. This, according to the petitioner, is unjust and illegal,
as advertising rights were given to the petitioner for two
years, and his interest would be adversely affected, if others
are also permitted to put unipoles for advertising.
5. Per contra, Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for
Nagar Nigam submits that monopoly was not created in
favour of petitioner and vide order dated 26.07.2024
petitioner was given right to display advertisement on 78
unipoles only, therefore, the Nagar Nigam was well within its
right to permit the successful bidder to install traffic signal
lights, and in lieu of such installation, permit the successful
bidder to put up unipoles on 7 locations.
6. This Court finds substance in the submission
made by Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate.
7. Since, no monopoly was created in favour of the
petitioner, regarding advertising rights and he was given
permission to erect unipoles on 78 locations within Nagar
Nigam, Roorkee, therefore, the challenge thrown by the
petitioner to the tender process initiated by Nagar Nigam,
Roorkee, for erection of the traffic signal lights, is without
any substance. The ground taken for challenging the
acceptance letter dated 03.09.2024, are also not sustainable.
Even otherwise also, petitioner do not have the locus standi
to raise the issues, which he has raised for questing the
2025:UHC:3227-DB
process of selection adopted by Nagar Nigam for installation
of traffic lights.
8. The Writ Petition thus fails, and is, hereby,
dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 29th April, 2025
Shiksha
SHIKSHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24
b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c,
BINJOLA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542
D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9
, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.04.30 10:06:36 +05'30'
