On 27th July, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva granted remission in payment of the licence fees to the M/S Pioneer Publicity Corporation Private Limited as it could not construct a unipole at the alternative allotted site on account of heavy power cables underneath.
Facts of the case:
Petitioner was granted exclusive rights and license to construct, operate and display advertisements by the respondent pursuant to the tender notice dated 06.11.2017. In terms of the allotment petitioner was to be offered an alternative site for constructing, operating and displaying the advertisements on a unipole as the unipole erected in the first side was removed by the Public Works Department. But the allotted site was not feasible and the contract of the petitioner in terms of the tender notice dated 06.11.2017 came to an end on 15.12.2020 by petitioner surrendering all the sites. Claim of the petitioner is that petitioner should be granted a remission from payment of license fee during the period 03.05.2019 (i.e. the date when the unipole at the said site was removed by PWD) till 15.12.2020.
Contention of the Petitioner:
The following submissions have been made by the petitioner:
- It was submitted that the alternative site was allotted to the petitioner was not physically feasible as there were heavy electrical wires under the allotted site which was acknowledged by the respondent.
- It was also submitted that The contract of the petitioner in terms of the tender notice dated 06.11.2017 came to an end on 15.12.2020 by petitioner surrendering all the sites.
- It is thus argued that the petitioner should be granted a remission from payment of license fee during the period 03.05.2019 (i.e. the date when the unipole at the said site was removed by PWD) till 15.12.2020 (i.e. the date when Petitioner surrendered all the sites). This is because no alternative site was allotted to the petitioner.
Contention of the Respondent:
The respondent had made the following submission:
- It was submitted that petitioner was, in a joint inspection, offered an alternative site on 08.06.2019, however, petitioner refused to accept the same on the ground that the same was not commercially feasible and thereafter on the request of petitioner further alternative sites were explored and ultimately on an alternative site was allotted.
- It was also argued that t that petitioner was offered a site on 08.06.2019 during the joint inspection and petitioner did not accept the same.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The Hon’ble bench of the court made the following observation:
- The contention of the respondent that petitioner was offered a site on 08.06.2019 during the joint inspection and petitioner did not accept the same does not merit acceptance for the reason that there is no formal allotment letter issued to the petitioner after the inspection on 08.06.2019.
- No doubt the inspection report records that several sites were inspected but the same were rejected by the petitioner being not commercially viable.
- Further the inspection carried out on 05.10.2019 fortifies the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the identification of site on 08.06.2019 was not final.
- Since the respondents did not formally offer or allot an alternative site to the petitioner so the question of petitioner rejecting the same on an untenable ground does not arise.
In view of the above, the petitioner was held entitled to remission in payment of the license fee for the period 03.05.2019 to 15.12.2020 i.e. the date when petitioner surrendered the cluster of sites.
Further the respondents were directed to refund the excess amount deposited by the petitioner with the respondents for the period aforesaid along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
