CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA Vs. BALKRISHNA RAJGHORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is directed against an order dated March 12, 1977, being order No. 335 passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court at Alipore, being T.S. No. 92 of 1965 allowing the application of the Plaintiff opposite party under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The father of the opposite party, Mathura Prosad Rajghoria, has instituted a suit being T.S. No. 92 of 1965 against the Corporation of Calcutta and the Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta, the Defendants Petitioners, for a declaration that the Plaintiff is the licensee under the Corporation of Calcutta having exclusive right to display both illuminated and non-illuminated advertisements of their own as was on behalf of their clients' kiosks fixed and to be fixed on all the electric and gas lamps posts belonging to and within the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Calcutta on the terms and conditions contained in the grant dated March 31, 1960, of the Corporation of Calcutta, the Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff's case in short is that in 1942 the Plaintiff was carrying on a business under the name and style of Calcutta Advertising Society and was granted licence for displaying advertisement of kiosks fixed and to be fixed on all the electric and gas lamp-posts belonging to the Calcutta Corporation on payment of sums as licence-fee for a period of seven years. After the expiry of the said licence the Plaintiff was given fresh licence in 1949 by an order of the Administrative Officer, Corporation of Calcutta, on December 13, 1949 and according to the terms of the said order the licence was to continue till March 19, 1962. The Plaintiff had to pay licence-fee at certain rates specified in the said order. The licence was to remain in force till March 31, 1962. The Plaintiff, it has been stated, offered to the Standing Committee a proposal for the grant to him of further licence for the display of illuminated kiosks on the Corporation lamp-posts for a period of 15 years and he was prepared to surrender the unexpired term of the existing licence under the Standing Town Planning and Improvement Committee by a resolution dated October 6, 1959, recommended for acceptance the proposal of the Plaintiff opposite party subject to certain terms and conditions.

(3.) The Corporation, however, by its resolution dated February 19, 1960, directed the said Standing Town Planning and Improvement Committee to invite tenders and to consider the matter afresh receiving the tenders. The Committee, however, passed on March 31, 1960, another resolution recommending tile grant of a fresh licence to the Plaintiff without inviting tenders, he said recommendation of the standing Committee was not accepted by the Corporation or Calcutta at its meeting held on December 1, 1960 and the matter was referred back to the Committee to comply with the directions of the Corporation. The Committee, however, made a request to the Corporation to reconsider the Corporation s earlier decision dated February 19, 1960, directing the Committee to invite tenders and to confirm the previous recommendations of the Committee dated March 31, 1960. The Corporation at its resolution dated March 3, 1961, passed a resolution disapproving the recommendations of the Committee and directing to advertise the licence after the expiry of the existing terms of the licence. The term of the licence expired on March 31, 1962 and the Plaintiff having been not removed the kiosks fixed by him on the lamp-posts belonging to the Corporation the Plaintiff was directed by the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation to remove the kiosks from the lamp-posts stands as the period of his licence had expired by letter issued by the Lighting Superintendent on June 20, 1963. The Plaintiff was also requested by another letter dated June 26, 1963, to remove the kiosks immediately from the lamp-posts. Against the order of the Commissioner, Mathura Prosad Rajghoria moved this Hon'ble Court in application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained a Rule of interim injunction restraining the Petitioners from enforcing the aforesaid letters till the disposal of the Rule. On April 30, 1965, the said Rule was discharged on the ground that the disputes involved could not be decided in a writ petition. The order of interim injunction, however, allowed to continue for a period of three months from the date of the order. Hence, this suit has been filed. There was a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants Petitioners, their servants and agents from giving effect to the orders of the Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta.