Tarun Kumar Basu, J. - (1.) The facts of this case may be noted as briefly as possible. The petitioner who carries on business under the name and style of Classic Advertising made an application on or about 19th January, 1977 to the Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal for grant of a licence for the display of Kiosks on Street Lamp Posts owned by the Public Works Department in the Maidan area and on the VIP Road upto the Calcutta Airport. On the 12th March, 1977, an Assistant Chief Engineer of the Department wrote to the petitioner asking him to submit the drawing of display boards for examination by the authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the drawings of display boards. On the 16th April, 1977 Deputy Secretary II of the said Department wrote to the petitioner to the effect that permission can be given on the acceptance of certain conditions as contained in that letter. On the 22nd April, 1977 the petitioner made a counter-offer. On the 2nd May, 1977 the Deputy Secretary II of the Department sent a communication to the petitioner. This communication is of vital importance to the petitioner in the present case and may be set out in full herein below:- "Dated Calcutta, the 2nd May, 1977. Sub:- Grant of permission for display of advertisement on boards to be affixed on lamp posts on VIP Road and Maidan Roads. Sir, With reference to your No CA : K : 278 : 77 dt. 20.4.77 on the above subject, I am directed to say that on careful consideration it has been decided as follows:- (i) Tenure of the permission will be five years for the present (ii) Display on boards will be allowed on all lamp posts by the side of maidan roads/VIP Road. (iii) Rental @ Rs. 12,000/- per annum is acceptable by the PWD with the proviso that three months rental against Rs. 12,000/- per annum is required to be paid in advance by the Coy. (iv) The coy, will get the model advertisement board approved by the P.W. Department prior to fixing them on lamp posts. (v) The coy will arrange for painting the lamp posts at its cost after every five years at their cost. On receipt of your formal acceptance in writing to the terms and conditions spelt out above, further necessary action will be taken at this end. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 2.5.77. Deputy Secretary II, P W D." Thereafter on the 3rd May, 1977 the petitioner wrote a letter to the said Deputy Secretary II the contents whereof may be set out herein-below:- "Dear Sir, Re : Grant of permission for the display of advertisements on boards to be affixed on lampposts belonging to PWD We thank you for your letter No. 1013-W(C) dated 2nd May, 1977 granting permission for the display of Kiosks (advertisement boards) on lamp posts belonging to the Public Works Department on VIP Road and Maidan A roads. We accept the conditions stipulated only in your letter under reply governing our appointment. We would now request you to kindly let us know the procedure for paying the first quarterly advance rental amounting to Rs. 3.000/- to enable us to remit the am runt immediately. An early reply will be appreciated. Thanking you and assuring you of our best services at all times." Thereafter there was no further correspondence between the parties mentioned hereinabove until August, 1977 when there was a demand for justice by the petitioner before the moving of the present application.
(2.) According to the petition, the petitioner after the letter of 3rd May, 1977 by which the terms offered to it by the Public Works Department were accepted was asked for inspection of the model, and offered the same for inspection to the appropriate officers of the Public Works Department. According to the petition, the petitioner was assured that the model would be inspected and approved after the Agreement is executed. The petitioner was further assured that immediately on the signing of the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the latter dated 2nd May, 1977 the petitioner would be allowed to commence display of kiosks on all the lamp-posts in the said area. No objection was raised at any time by the respondent No. I and/or the appropriate officers of the Public Works Department regarding the size and type of the display board. According to the petition, on or about 5th August, 1977 the petitioners Branch Manager was surprised to find that approximately 5 or 6 boards and/or kiosks had been put up in the Maidan area in the name of ADWAVE, which is the sole proprietary business of the respondent no. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner made enquiries to ascertain whether any order has been placed by the respondent no. I in respect of the kiosks in the Maidan area and on VIP Road in favour of the respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, the final decision for putting up all kiosks in the Maidan area and on VIP road as given by the respondent no. I in its letter of 2nd May, 1977 is still valid and binding on the respondent no. 1. According to the petition, the petitioner apprehends that after the said final decision contained in the letter of 2nd May, 1977 and its acceptance by the petitioner by the letter of 3rd May, 1977, the respondent no. 1 has wrongfully and illegally passed an order of erection of advertisement boards and/or kiosks in the said area in favour of the respondent no. 2. In paragraph 18 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner has purchased raw materials for the manufacture of over one thousand kiosks and has incurred expenses and also widely published to its clients for entering into contracts and has entered into various contracts with these clients for display of advertisements in the said kiosks. In the circumstances, the petitioner has acted to its detriment and the respondent no 1 is rot entitled to resile from the same and/or grant permission to any one except the petitioner.
(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner challenges the grant alleged to have been made in favour of the respondent No. 2 on various grounds and prays for a writ of Mandamus to withdraw, cancel and rescind any permission that may have been granted to the respondent No. 2 and for a direction that the decision contained in the letters dated 2nd May, 1977 and its acceptance by the petitioner dated the 3rd May, 1977 be carried out.;