Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of a writ petitioner and is directed against order dated June 25, 2007 passed by a reamed Single Judge by which His Lordship vacated the interim order initially granted at the time of entertaining the writ application.
(2.) Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal.
(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus: (a) The appellant No. 1 is a private limited company and pursuant to a tender being T-7/l/2004-05 floated by the respondents, it along with other bidders participated In the process of tender and was successful in getting the work-order for licence enabling it to use the kiosks for the purpose of giving advertisements on 2365 Tram Poles situated in the priority areas and on 609 Train Poles situated in the non-priority areas scattered all over the city of Kolkata along with the Tram lines except the poles on which stop-boards are fixed for a period of three years commencing from 15th July, 2004. (b) Accordingly, an agreement was executed on 10th June, 2004 between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent-company for displaying of advertisements on kiosks on 3055 Tram Poles belong in to the respondent-company in different streets of Kolkata and suburbs on some specific terms and conditions. (c) In compliance of the terms and conditions incorporated in the said agreement, the appellants made payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- (fifty one lakh) towards rental for advertisement right on 3055 Tram Poles in advance to the respondent-company and as per the said terms and conditions, the appellants supplied all the materials for the kiosks and their fittings on Tram Poles at their own cost for making advertisements thereby incurring further cost. (d) For improvement of Tram-Tracks by way of concretisation at the various places in the city of Kolkata, the respondent-company issued letters to the appellants for removal of the kiosks on the tram poles situated at the site of construction as a result the appellants were compelled to remove 911 kiosks out of 3055 poles over which right of advertisements was given to the appellants. (e) Therefore, during the period of the agreement. the appellants were not in a position to give any advertisement on those kiosks although they paid the entire amount in advance for exercising their right in accordance with the agreement and accordingly. the appellants made representations to the respondents for extending the period of licence as they suffered huge amount of loss for not being able to utilise the space for a considerable period of time during the period of the agreement. (f) Oil the basis of those representations, the respondents took a decision that immediately after the restoration of the tracks in question, the appellants would be given the benefit of advertisements for extended period as they could not utilise the full period of contract for the renovation work. (g) However, the respondents vide their notice dated November 16, 2006 intimated the appellants that the claim of the appellants for giving benefit of extension of licence was unjustified. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 invited fresh tender on June 11, 2007 by publishing an advertisement in the Statesman for three years from August 1, 2007 in respect of those 3055 poles. (h) The respondent-company with mala fide intention turned down the claim of the appellants and had issued fresh advertisement for tender in respect of 911 kiosks for which they earlier agreed to extend the period of licence to the appellants. Hence the writ application.;