- (1.)This Petition has been filed by JCDECAUX Advertising India Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3973 of 2012, which came to be decided in favour of Times Innovative Media Ltd., the Writ Petitioner before the High Court of Delhi and Respondent No. 1 before us. In essence, the impugned judgment dated 2.4.2013 contains the conclusion that the Authorities had not acted reasonably and in accordance with the relevant Rules by resorting to the process of nomination for the award of the contract in question, which was for upgradation of 319 Bus Queue Shelters (BQS) and installation of 100 new BQSs in fresh locations across Delhi, and for their operation, maintenance and marketing advertisement spaces for a period of 20 years (extendable by 5 years). Shri Gourab Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appears for the Government of NCT of Delhi in S.I.P. (C) No. 17470 of 2013 which also assails the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. Briefly stated, it is the contention of Shri Banerjee that several attempts have been made in the past by the Government of NCT of Delhi for entering into contracts for the erection and maintenance of BQSs in Delhi, but previous experience has proved to be entirely futile. Even where contracts had been executed, the concerned parties had walked out of their obligations. Meanwhile, the Government had felt a pressing need for the erection of BQSs and their subsequent maintenance, which is only possible by sharing revenue from advertisements that the successful party would be able to garner from the public. It has been explained by Shri Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General that keeping these annals in view, and also the global reputation of JCDECAUX Advertising India Pvt. Ltd. in perspective, it was thought appropriate by the Govt. of the NCT of Delhi to directly enter into a contract with the said company without resorting to the usual tender process, which by past experience was certain to lead to gross delays and the likelihood of not evincing genuine interest in the market.
(2.)Respondent No. 1 in both the Special Leave Petitions, namely, Times Innovative Media Pvt. Ltd. (the Writ Petitioner before the High Court) has appeared before us and has endeavoured to support the impugned Judgment. On the contrary, JCDECAUX has submitted, in reiteration of the stance it adopted in the High Court of Delhi, that it has similar operations in over thirty countries and is desirous of honouring even unremunerative contracts in order to build and protect its global reputation.
(3.)However, in the course of the protracted hearings before us, all three contesting parties had arrived at a consensus that it would be legal, expedient and just for this Court to conduct an auction inter parties. We harboured some doubts as to whether such a course, which avowedly is salutary and expedient, would be legally proper. However, learned Additional Solicitor General as well as Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-JCDECAUX Advertising India Pvt. Ltd., Shri C.A. Sundaram and Shri Parag Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1, have submitted in unison that in the circumstances of the case it would be perfectly legal to conduct an auction between JCDECAUX Advertising India Pvt. Ltd. and Times Innovative Media Ltd. since the contractual as well as jural history is indicative of the position that there are no other genuinely serious parties which are interested in the subject matter of the contract. We are also satisfied that the factual matrix of the matter justifies our invoking the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.