Moksh Innovation Inc.Thru. Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And

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 4 WRIC No. 10659 of 2025 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 5 WRIC No. 10659 of 2025 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. 6 WRIC No. 10659 of 2025 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 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.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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 4 WRIC No. 10659 of 2025 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 5 WRIC No. 10659 of 2025 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. 6 WRIC No. 10659 of 2025 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 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.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench