Madras High CourtWP/41270/2016disposed of

Famous Adds v. The Union Of India

2016-11-28Honourable Mr Justice B. Rajendran6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.11.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition No. 41270 of 2016 --

1. Famous Adds No.30-2, II Dharma Nagar Suramangalam Salem rep. by its Proprietor Syed Mohammed

2. P. Sathiyanathan No.4/4, Soosaipuram (North) Omega Arts House Tirupur - 641 001

3. J. Balaji No.20/3, Venkatachalapathi Nagar G. Koundanpalayam Periyanalkenpalayam Post Coimbatore - 641 020

4. Shri Associates No.6-A, SDRO Compound Race Course Coimbatore - 641 013 rep. by Mr. M. Ramesh

5. B. Naresh Kumar No.136/5, Thadagam Road Velandipalayam Coimbatore - 641 025

6. M/s. Standard Communications No.88, VKK Menon Road Siddhapudur Coimbatore - 641 044 rep. by Mr. V. Sundar

7. Pooja Advertising No.615, AGK Complex Near 100 Feet Road Signal Gandhipuram Coimbatore - 641 012 rep. by Mr. G. Mari Raajavelu

8. M/s. Four Square Media Near Candeep Apartment No.117, 1st Floor, Ismail Street Coimbatore - 641 001 rep. by Mr. S. Ayyappan

9. M/s. Times Advertisers No.6-A, Masthiammal Layout Sivananda Colony Coimbatore - 641 012 rep. by Mr. A. Jahir Hussain

10. R. Natarajan No.384/3/54-A, Perumal Gounder Colony Narasothipatty, Salem - 636 004

11. M/s., Sathyas Ad Media No.3, 4, Gokulam Street K.K. Pudur Coimbatore - 641 038 rep. by Mr. A. Raviprakash

12. M/s. Asian Adds No.541/60, Ex-Serviceman Colony Lakshmipuram, Ganapathy Coimbatore - 641 006 rep. by Mr. M.M. Palanivel

13. M/s. ADSPOT No.29, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road 9th Street Extension Gandhipuram Coimbatore - 641 012 rep. by Mr. S. Gokulraj

14. M/s. Aroma Ads No.1-A, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore - 641 001 rep. by Mr. T. Jaison Thomas

15. M/s. Rathna Enterprises Plot No.2, Dee Gee Nagar Second Main Road, Surapet Chennai - 600 066 represented by Mr. Neelakandan

16. M/s. Pooja Enterprises No.6, Thirupur Kumaran Street Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066 represented by Mr. Mahesh

17. V. Shanmugasundaram No.43/1, Nethaji Street 2nd Surampati Valasu Sukampathi Erode - 628 009

18. M/s. S. Media No.21, Nagappa Tower Robertson Road R.S. Puram Coimbatore - 641 002 representated by Mr. Prabhunath

19. A. Damodaran No.163/4, Meena Estate 3rd Layout, Souripalayam Coimbatore - 641 028

20. M/s. Noble Ads D-10, A.R. Building No.18/29, Maclasi Road Melapudur, Trichy - 621 001 represented by Mr. Raj Noble

21. M/s. Kreatly India 5th Cross, Thillainagar Trichy - 620 018 represented by Mr. John Brito .. Petitioners

Versus

1. The Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Railways New Delhi - 110 001

2. The Executive Director/Traffic Commercial/NFR Railway Board "Rail Bhavan"

Raisina Road New Delhi - 110 001

3. The General Manager Southern Railway - Head Quarters Park Town Chennai - 600 003

4. Chief Commercial Manager (Passenger Service & Catering) Southern Railway - Head Quarters Park Town, Chennai - 600 003

5. Chief Commercial Manager (Passenger Service & Catering) Southern Railway - Head Quarters Park Town, Chennai - 600 003

6. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (Commercial) Divisional Railway Manager's Office Salem - 636 005 .. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from removing the Advertiser's and Canvasser's valid and subsisting licenses, display boards, glow sign boards and other structures granted in favour of the petitioners 1 to 21 herein, pending finalisation of the new policy until March 2017, fixed by the second respondent herein and to consequently restrain the respondents from calling for any quotation for grant of advertisements until March 2017 or until formulation of the new policy by the Railway Administration.

For Petitioners :

Mr. Sriram for Ms. Swarnam J. Rajagopalan For Respondents :

Mr. P.T. Ramkumar

ORDER

The petitioners herein are Proprietors of the advertisement firms/canvassers who have entered into advertisement contracts with the respondents/Railways for putting up advertisements in various Railway Stations and other premises under the control of the respondents in their Divisional Offices. Such agreements were entered into by the petitioners with the respondents/Railways initially for a period of one year and it was extended from time to time. According to the petitioners, on the basis of the agreements they have entered into with the respondents/Railways, they have invested huge amount for provision of infrastructural ameneties such as LED lightings, hoardings etc., According to the petitioners, they came to understand that the respondents have formulated a new policy as per which they are likely to handover the commercial publication of entire division of all types of media to a single operator, thereby the petitioners were deprived of their livelihood. Therefore, they have come up with the present writ petition for the relief stated above.

Mr. Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the existing licence issued to the petitioners is valid till March 2017. However, during the subsistence of the licence period, the respondents have orally directed the petitioners to remove the advertising boards installed by them. The representations made by the petitioners for extension of the licence or contract has not been considered till date. The new policy formulated by the respondents has not been implemented or given effect to and it will take some more time for the respondents to give effect to the new policy, while so, by citing the policy to be formulated, the respondents are refusing to handover the places earmarked for the petitioners to advertise and/or make their signboard display. It is further submitted that the licence issued in

favour of some of the petitioners has already lapsed and they have submitted a representation to the respondents for extension of licence along with demand drafts, but the demand drafts have been returned to them. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that as the petitioners have engaged themselves in the business of advertisement for a long time with the respondents/Railways, the respondents are not justified in refusing to extend the contract in their favour. 3.

Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents/ Railways would vehemently contend that licence issued in favour of some of the petitioners have already expired and only in few cases, the licence is valid till March 2017. The learned counsel for the respondents would further contend that Railways have taken a policy decision to handover the entire work relating to advertisement to a single operator to have uniformity in the matter of awarding licence for advertisement and to augment the revenue. While so, the petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, seek for extending the licence in their favour. Further, when the licence in favour of some of the petitioners has already expired, they have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions. It is however stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners, in whose favour the licence is valid till 31.03.2017 will not be disturbed and they will be continued to do their business till 31.03.2017.

I heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing counsel for the respondents, when the respondents have formulated a policy to augment their commercial revenue and to bring all the commercial activities relating to advertisement under a single umbrella so as to ensure uniformity, this Court cannot interfere with such a policy decision. 5.

Having regard to the submission of the learned standing counsel for the respondents, a direction is hereby issued to the respondents not to disturb the petitioners in whose favour licence is valid till 31.03.2017 and they shall be permitted to carry on their business till such time. As far as the claim of the petitioners in whose favour the licence issued by the Railways has already been expired, this Court can only direct the respondents to give reasonable time for them for removal of the advertisement boards etc., and also to consider their claim for extension of licence period as per Law. In other words, it is suffice to state, without expressing any opinion on merits, that the claim of the petitioners for extension of the licence beyond the period for which they were granted licence, shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP Nos. 35243 and 35244 of 2016 are closed.

-s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar rsh To

1. The Secretary to Government The Union of India Ministry of Railways New Delhi - 110 001