Petitioner challenged restraint on displaying "Prepaid Taxi Services" board at an airport. Court held that licence required prior written approval for signboards, which petitioner lacked. Writ petition dismissed.
Petitioner restrained from displaying board; contract termination threatened if not complied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.15314 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15314 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.2.2012
M/s Bipasha Aviations Services Pvt. Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another
...
Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the respondents.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
CWP No.15314 of 2010
2
agreement dated 17.9.2007 entered between Airport Authority of India and the petitioner. The said licence agreement is for a period of five years commencing from 2.9.2007 to 1.9.2012, Annexure P.1. The petitioner was running its business smoothly. In July 2008, the persons who ply their taxis outside the Rajasansi International Airport at Amritsar in the name and style of “The Raja Sansi Airport Prepaid Taxi Association” filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from displaying the words “Prepaid Taxi Service” by installing a board before their counters and also from interfering into the business of the said Association. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. The suit was filed against the petitioner and Airport Authority of India. The suit was contested by both the parties by filing written statement The trial court after hearing the parties vide order dated December 4, 2008, Annexure P.3 dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 25/29.9.2009, Annexure P.4 from the respondent-authority alleging that use of “Prepaid taxi” board could not be used as the same was not as per the agreement. The petitioner-company sent a reply dated October 5, 2009, Annexure P.5 to the said letter. According to the petitioner-company, no appeal was filed against the order dated 4.12.2008 and as a result the said order attained finality. The petitioner-company again received a letter dated July 30, 2010, Annexure P.6 from the respondent-authority directing it to change the board on counter where it is mentioned “prepaid taxi”. It was also stated in the said letter that if the board was not changed by August 2, 2010, then action shall be initiated against the petitioner-company including termination of the contract. Hence this petition.
CWP No.15314 of 2010
3
“17. The licensee shall not erect or display any advertisement or signboards except after obtaining the prior approval in writing from the authority.”
CWP No.15314 of 2010
4
the permission which is to be in writing from respondent No.2 . In the present case, no such approval in writing was taken by the licenseepetitioner. Further referring to Annexure P.2 - the written statement which was filed in the suit filed by the above mentioned Association, there is no such admission as has been sought to be canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that any legal right or terms of contract had been violated by respondent No.2 in restraining it from using the signboards without mentioning “prepaid taxi service”.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge
February 01, 2012 ‘gs’
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could display a board with the words "Prepaid Taxi Services" without prior written approval from the respondent authority.
Whether the restraint imposed on the petitioner constitutes a violation of the tourism tax licence agreement.
Whether the petitioner had a legal right to continue displaying the signboard under the terms of the contract.
M/s Bipasha Aviations Services Pvt. Limited
Union of India
another
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
