MAHENDRA BHUSHAN SHARMA, J. - (1.) AN identical question is involved in all the six writ petitions listed above and therefore all of them are being disposed of by this common order. A copy of the order be placed on each file.
(2.) FOR disposal of the writ petitions the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 602/1986 (Roop Chand Maheshwari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) shall alone be stated. The petitioner Roop Chand Meheshwari is a proprietor of M/s Rajasthan Publicity Centre and is engaged in the business of advertisement for the last five years. As appears from Schedule 'A' annexed to the writ petition the petitioner has put 20 hoardings on Municipal land and 5 hoardings on private land. The petitioner obtained licences under the Municipal Council Jaipur Advertising Bye -laws, 1974 (for short, the bye -laws) framed under Section 90(3) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short the Act). The licensing authority under its order dated March 13, 1986 took a decision not to renew the licences, issued under the bye -laws, of the petitioners and others and took a decision that the petitioners and others in case they intend to exhibit hoardings should apply for licence in accordance with the notification of the Municipal Council Jaipur dated February 20, 1986. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order of the Licensing Authority deciding not to renew the licences of the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the orders have been passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in utter disregard of the order passed by the Government on January 11, 1985/January 22,1985 and also of the order passed by this Court on January 17, 1986. In the former order the Government had made absolutely clear that in case of hoardings are removed, suitable alternative sites have to be offered at the nearby spot, as far as possible, that the licensing authority has refused renewal on extraneous considerations and the action of the licensing authority is arbitrary and malafide and the petitioners have a right to have the licences renewed on payment of fee and this right cannot be denied for extraneous reasons; that the decision of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is beyond the scope of Section 90 of the Act as well as the bye -laws
(3.) BEFORE I take up the reply filed on behalf of the respondents and arguments advanced, it will be proper to give the number of hoardings involved in each writ petition for which renewal has been prayed. ____________________________________________________________________S. No. of Writ Petition Name of petitioner hoardingsNo.____________________________________________________________________(1) 602/1986 Roop Chand Maheshwari, 25M/s Rajasthan Publicity Centre.(2) SBCW No. 542/86 M/s National Advertising Co. 65(3) SBCW No. 562/86 Rainbow Advertising Services 5(4) SBCW No. 563/86 Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 31(5) SBCW No. 564/86 M/s Paramount AdvertisingServices 29(6) SBCW No. 636/86 Uma Publicity Co. 22____________________________________________________________________Total 177____________________________________________________________________ The total number of hoardings for which licences had been issued to the different advertising agencies as per the case of the petitioner was 177. ;