- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for declaring the Haryana Municipalities Outdoor Advertising Policy-2010 (for brevity, "the 2010 Policy") as null and void. The '2010 Policy' after its approval by the Council of Ministers in the meeting held on 4.2.2010, was circulated in the respondent State of Haryana on 16.2.2010 with a direction that it has superseded the Haryana Municipal (Control on Advertisement) Bye-laws, 2008, which were notified on 5.5.2008 and all other subsequent instructions issued thereafter. It has further been stated in the said communication that all outdoor advertisements would be governed by the 2010 Policy (P-4). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of advertising and publicity. The Municipal Corporation, Faridabad-respondent No. 2 (for brevity, "the Corporation") apparently is an institution of self Government constituted under Part-IXA of the Constitution and, thus, is an agency of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. On 12.10.2010, the Corporation issued a notice inviting sealed tenders from the agencies for the grant of advertising rights on BOT basis for three years on Bus-Q-Shelters, Unipoles, Gantries, Kiosks on Street Light Poles, Urinals/Toilets with daily maintenance, Garbage Collection Centre, Attendance Sheds and LED based Video Walls specified by the Corporation. The last date for submitting the tender was 16.11.2010. Various conditions were also incorporated in the said notice (P-3).
(2.) It is undisputed that the tender in question was floated jointly for all type of medias fixing minimum reserve price of Rs. 11 crores, which is allegedly beyond the financial capacity of an entrepreneur like the petitioner and he could not participate in the tender process. In other words, as per the tender document all type of medias in the limits of the Corporation were to be considered as a whole and given to a single bidder. After inquiry the petitioner came to know about the "2010 Policy" (P-4) framed by the respondent State of Haryana in exercise of powers under Sections 200 (P) and 214 read with Sections 88, 392, 393 and 394 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for brevity, "the Act").
(3.) The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by clause 5(a) of the Guiding Principles contained in the "2010 Policy". Clause 5 prescribes the procedure for grant of permission which reads as under: 5. Procedure for grant of permission: The policy shall apply to all the municipal areas in the State and shall cover all lands/properties belonging to all State Govt. Departments, Boards and Corporations unless specifically exempted by the Govt. a) The permission to put up advertisement on municipal land/building shall be granted by inviting tenders for a town/City as a whole. No tender quoting the rates below the reserve price as decided by a committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporation and Deputy Commissioner in case of Municipal Councils/Committees, including local concerned officers and Commissioner, Executive Officer/Secretary shall be accepted. The committee shall decide the reserve price on the basis of the following, among other parameters. i) Location of the site. ii) Size of the advertisement board/banner. iii) Past revenue collection; and iv) number of sites. The advertisement rights shall be given for a period of three years or as may be decided. It shall be terminable at three months notice. In the event of default of terms it shall be terminable forthwith. b) to f) xxx xxx xxx;