KAKA ADVERTISING AGENCY Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-149
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (AT: LUCKNOW)
Decided on December 10,2015

Kaka Advertising Agency Appellant
VERSUS
The State of U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner, said to be an accredited agency with Indian Newspaper Society, Delhi, has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 18.02.2003 (Annexure -11) whereby it has been held guilty of fraudulent conduct with the respondents; and has been removed from the panel of registered advertising agencies of the Information and Public Relations Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
(2.) After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we have formed the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration by the authorities concerned. Thus, when the matter is proposed to be restored to the file of the department for re-consideration, dilatation on all the issues raised in this petition does not appear necessary. Only a brief reference to the relevant aspects and would suffice.
(3.) The petitioner had undertaken the work of publication of an advertisement of respondent No.2, which was to be published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagaran' on the Republic Day of the year 2001 (i.e., 26.01.2001). The petitioner, alleging to have carried out the work as assigned, raised the bill for the advertisement in question and also made a demand for its other outstanding bills. However, by the order dated 06.03.2002, the respondent No.2 proceeded to order stoppage of work assignment to the petitioner until an enquiry, while observing that several cases of fraudulent dealing of the petitioner had come to the fore. Thereafter, by the orders issued on 15.03.2002, the respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner had wrongly suggested publication of the advertisement in New Delhi Edition of the Newspaper Dainik Jagaran dated 26.01.2001 on page No.11 though in fact, some other advertisement of the Government of India was published on the said page; and therefore, payment of an amount of Rs.33,800/- was wrongfully obtained by the petitioner, which was liable to be recovered. With these findings and observations, the respondent No.2 also proceeded to blacklist the petitioner for any future dealing with the department.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.