/10659/2025 of MOKSH INNOVATION INC.THRU. MANAGER JITENDRA SINGH BISHT Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. NAGAR VIKAS LKO. AND 2 OTHERS on 12 December 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10659 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Heard Shri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers " "(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction or a writ of mandamus, the opposite parties, their employees, servants, agents or whomsoever acting or claiming on Restrained their behalf be restrained from tearing the advertisement displays, etc., at the allotted sites of the petitioner till November 2026, i.e., currency of licence, upon performance of terms by the petitioner.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction or a writ of Mandamus, the opposite parties, their employees, servants, agents or whomsoever acting or claiming on their behalf be directed to comply with principles of natural justice qua the petitioner-(respecting at least renewal dated 13.10.2021) before taking any action entailing consumption of precious contract time and wasting thereof in avoidable litigation.

(iii) By an appropriate ad-interim order, the opposite parties, their employees, servants, agents whomsoever acting or claiming on their behalf be restrained from tearing the advertisement displays, etc., at the allotted sites of the petitioner till November 2026, i.e., currency of licence extended vide letter dated 10.10.2021, upon performance of terms by the petitioner, during pendency of the instant petition before this Hon'ble Court." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Piyush Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Namit Sharma Moksh Innovation Inc.Thru. Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 10.10.2006 and 01.12.2006, agreements were entered into between the petitioner and Nagar Nigam allotting traffic islands for a period of five years with a clause for renewal after every five years for valuable consideration. The latest renewal letter issued by Nagar Nigam is dated 13.10.2021, which was valid till November, 2026. For display of advertisements/signages etc. on such traffic islands, bus shelters and other sites allotted by Nagar Nigam, Lucknow Nagar Nigam was entitled to charge tax/fee in accordance with law. The petitioner has deposited advance tax for the traffic islands till March, 2026. On 05.06.2025, a letter was issued by Lucknow Nagar Nigam intimating cancellation of allotment of traffic islands. The petitioner informed Nagar Nigam through its letters dated 11.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 that the renewal of allotment of traffic islands was valid till November, 2026 and advance tax had also been deposited till September, 2025. Thereafter, a Shuddhi Patra/corrigendum was issued by Lucknow Nagar Nigam on 22.07.2025, withdrawing its earlier letter dated 05.06.2025. Till 12.10.2025, the petitioner continued to display advertisements on 19 traffic islands which had been allotted to him. However, thereafter, the employees of Nagar Nigam tore/removed such advertisements/signages from the said 19 traffic islands without any reason and without giving any notice. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was also granted a lease of 30 years to operate 18 bus shelters by the Public Works Department in December, 2005 and November, 2006. However, the petitioner chose to retain only three such spots/bus shelters for display of advertisements/signages and informed Nagar Nigam accordingly. The petitioner calculated the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.2,67,225/- and paid the same by cheque in favour of Lucknow Nagar Nigam. However, Lucknow Nagar Nigam illegally and unauthorisedly issued a cancellation order regarding bus shelters along with a demand to pay remaining charges for advertisements for all spots by its notice dated 06.04.2023. The petitioner filed Writ-C No. 3357 of 2023 "M/s Moksh Inno. Inc. vs. State of U.P. and Others" before this Court, which was disposed of by an order dated 11.05.2023 recording the submission made by counsel for Nagar Nigam that certain spots had been allotted by the P.W.D. and Nagar Nigam was only realising tax/advertisement fee for advertisements/signages displayed by the petitioner. It was further submitted that since the petitioner was ready to pay the dues demanded by Nagar Nigam, if it so wished, could give time to the petitioner to deposit such dues and may re-visit the impugned order dated 06.04.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited quarterly tax on 18.05.2023 and again on 26.12.2023. However, Lucknow Nagar Nigam raised an illegal and exorbitant demand notice dated 08.07.2024 for all 18 bus shelters. The petitioner also deposited the fourth quarterly tax on 09.07.2024 and the first quarterly tax for the year 2024–25, but Nagar Nigam continued to raise illegal demands. Another notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.08.2024 with respect to the bus shelters. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court again by filing Writ-C No.8314 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.09.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court. Thereafter, Civil Misc. Review Application No.115 of 2024 was moved by the petitioner praying for review of the order dated 11.05.2023 passed in Writ-C No.3357 of 2023. The said review application was rejected by this Court on 06.12.2024. Lucknow Nagar Nigam repeatedly raised bills for payment of dues including all 18 spots, whereas the petitioner had been allowed to display advertisements only on three spots. The petitioner is willing to settle the accounts for the three sites on which advertisements were actually displayed. An application for modification/clarification of the order passed by this Court in Writ-C No.3357 of 2023 was also filed, which was rejected by this Court on 19.05.2025. The petitioner thereafter filed representations before Nagar Nigam, which have not been disposed of till date. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer, as the respondents are tearing down the advertisement displays made by the petitioner at the allotted sites, despite the licence for the said sites being renewed till November, 2026 and despite payment of dues by the petitioner upto March, 2026. Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for Lucknow Nagar Nigam has pointed out the earlier order dated 11.05.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.3357 of 2023, wherein the prayer clause sought quashing of the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow as well as quashing of the communication/notice dated 06.04.2023 issued by the Tax Superintendent, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow. The petitioner had also prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from removing the traffic islands and bus shelters legally constructed and maintained by the petitioner pursuant to permission granted by the Traffic Police and P.W.D. The Court noticed that Nagar Nigam had cancelled the contract for traffic islands/bus shelters due to non-payment of dues by the petitioner. However, the then counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam had informed the Court, on instructions, that the cancellation of the contract for advertisement was only with respect to bus shelters and not for running of bus shelters and traffic islands. The Court noticed the submissions made by counsel for Nagar Nigam regarding cancellation of the advertisement contract for bus shelters and the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay all dues. Accordingly, the Court observed that the respondents may re-visit the impugned order and if they wished to give time, they could do so, however, if they did not wish to give any time, they could let the matter rest as it was. It is evident that the notice dated 06.04.2023, which was a communication made by respondent no.3 to the petitioner, was on record of the writ petition as an annexure, for which quashing was prayed. The said notice clearly mentioned cancellation of the contract for both bus shelters and traffic islands. Learned counsel for Nagar Nigam has also brought to the notice of this Court a copy of the file noting relating to cancellation of the contract concerning traffic islands, traffic booths, bus shelters, tree-guards, pole kiosks, unipoles, and beautification of road crossings by setting up advertisements/signages etc. The order dated 06.04.2023 is taken on record. The proposal made by the office was accepted by the Municipal Commissioner on 06.04.2023 and communication regarding the same was made to the petitioner on the very same day. It has been submitted by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for Nagar Nigam that the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Municipal Commissioner was not interfered with by the Court, nor was the notice dated 06.04.2023 interfered with. The Court had only given discretion to the Municipal Commissioner that, in case the petitioner was willing to pay all dues, the Municipal Commissioner may re-visit the order. The Municipal Commissioner did not find it appropriate to re-visit the order dated 06.04.2023. The review application and the application for modification/clarification moved by the petitioner were also rejected by the Court. It has also been stated that the second writ petition i.e. Writ-C No.8314 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 08.08.2024 and 09.08.2024. In the said petition, the contents of which were noted in paragraph 6 of the Court's order dated 25.09.2024, the respondents stated that 18 bus shelters were allotted to the petitioner by P.W.D. and advertisement rights were granted by Lucknow Nagar Nigam on the basis of an order dated 20.01.2017, subject to certain conditions. Those conditions were violated by the petitioner and, therefore, Nagar Nigam passed the order dated 06.04.2023 cancelling the advertisement rights for traffic islands and bus shelters. The Court also noted the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was ready to pay the amount due to Nagar Nigam. Certain amounts remained unpaid i.e. Rs.60,75,582/-. The Court, however, observed that the petitioner, having been given repeated opportunities, was violating the terms of the contract and, therefore, the licence granted to him for advertisement was cancelled. The Court was of the opinion that the petitioner could not be allowed to continue with advertisement rights because the cancellation order had already been issued. If the petitioner wished the contract conditions to be enforced, he can approach the competent civil court for a mandatory injunction or specific performance of the contract. The order dated 25.09.2024 passed in Writ-C No.8314 of 2024 has not been appealed by the petitioner and has, therefore, attained finality between the parties. Likewise, the earlier order dated 11.05.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 3357 of 2023 has also attained finality between the parties.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for Nagar Nigam that on two occasions the petitioner approached this Court and on both occasions this Court refused to interfere, treating the matter as contractual in nature, where violation of the terms of the contract led to cancellation. Shri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the order dated 11.05.2023 was passed on the basis of submissions made by counsel for Nagar Nigam that the contract had been cancelled only for bus shelters. It has been further stated that the petitioner deposited certain amounts through RTGS without prior permission having been granted by the Municipal Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner did not re-visit the order dated 06.04.2023 finding the petitioner to be a habitual defaulter. Since the petitioner deposited some amount, he was allowed to continue advertisements up to 30.09.2025. However, the contract having already been cancelled, no right subsists in the petitioner to seek the relief prayed for in the writ petition. Having gone through the notice dated 06.04.2023, which was issued pursuant to the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Municipal Commissioner and annexed with the writ petition, we find that it clearly mentions cancellation of the contract not only for bus shelters but also for traffic islands, traffic booths, tree-guards, pole kiosks, unipoles, and beautification of road crossings by installation of advertisements/signages etc. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable. We find that the petitioner's contract was cancelled on 06.04.2023 for both bus shelters and traffic islands. We do not find any good ground to grant the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. December 12, 2025 Mahesh

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench