JUDGMENT 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. 3. 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 & 3 is beyond the scope of Section 90 of the Act as well as the bye-laws 4. 2 & 3 is beyond the scope of Section 90 of the Act as well as the bye-laws 4. 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. No. of Writ Petition Name of petitioner hoardings -1 602/1986 Roop Chand Maheshwari M/s Rajasthan Publicity Centre. 25 -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 Advertising Services 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. 5. Stay orders were issued by this Court in identical terms in all the writ petitions and applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the exparte interim order were filed and it was prayed that the exparte orders be vacated. It was given out by the learned Counsel for the Municipal Council that the same may be read as reply to the writ petition. The case of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that the licensing authority took a decision not to renew the licences and such a decision was taken in the public interest. It is stated in the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution that a proviso was added in 1979 in bye-laws and under that proviso 5 Ga' renewal of the present hoarding licences may be done only if the licensing authority deems proper by increasing 15% over the last year's amount. The proviso does not confer a right of renewal on the licensees. The petitioners have already enjoyed the licences for more than one decade & under the bye-laws the period of licence will expire on 31 March every year. The discretion of granting or not granting renewal has been exercised by the licensing authority keeping in view the interest of the Municipal Council, free and fair opportunity to all advertisers and to check and discourage profiteering defaults and malpractices was provided. As per the case of the respondents Nos. The discretion of granting or not granting renewal has been exercised by the licensing authority keeping in view the interest of the Municipal Council, free and fair opportunity to all advertisers and to check and discourage profiteering defaults and malpractices was provided. As per the case of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 the renewal applications have been duly considered and the letters were issued to the petitioners; providing opportunity for personal hearing but Shri Roop Chand Maheshwari did not put appearance. It is also the case of the respondents Nos. 2 & 3 that when tenders were invited as per notice dated Dec. 13, 1985, 10 persons filed their tenders for 195 sites for Rs. 15,28,330/- (average per site Rs. 7800/-. Annexure R/4 contains the numbers of hoardings name of the tenderer and amount of tender. As per the present rate amount paid by the company comes to Rs. 2000/- per hoarding and the total amount comes to Rs. 3,90,000/-. Thus, the interest of the Municipal Board was one of the important objectives in deciding not to renew the licences. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have also come out with the case that for 177 sites, when separate applications were invited for each site as per-orders of this Court, 28 advertising agencies applied and 3240 applications were received which works out 18 applications from one site. This goes to show that there is healthy competition and it will lead to augment the income of the Municipal Council. Some amounts are also said to be due against four advertising agencies, M/s Rainbow Advertising Agency, M/s Paramount Advertising Services, M/s Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and National Advertising Co. and their details are contained in para 5(f) of the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. 6. Before I refer to the earlier orders of this Court to see whether they have any relevancy to the present controversy or not and if they have any relevancy to what extent, it is necessary to deal with the scheme of the bye-laws. The bye-laws came into force in 1974 and already stated, they have been framed by the Municipal Council Jaipur under its powers vested on it under Section 90(3) of the Act and that also after approval of the State Government. The bye-laws came into force in 1974 and already stated, they have been framed by the Municipal Council Jaipur under its powers vested on it under Section 90(3) of the Act and that also after approval of the State Government. The bye-laws have been framed under Clause (ac) of Sub-section (1) of Section 90 of the Act for regulating the posting of bills for advertisement etc. 'Licence' has been defined in Clause (2) (5) of the bye-laws and means a licence issued under the provisions of bye-laws. "Advertisement' (Vigyapan) under Clause (2) (g) means suchboard or information board, play-card', hand bills, sketches, name-plate electric-operated advertisement and hoardings etc, which have been exhibited on any building or wall and which is used for exhibiting any advertisement or it exhibits name of any person or a firm. Clause (1) of by-law 4 prohibits affixing any advertisement on any building, bridge, high-way including foot-path, tree, electric pole, telephone pole or vehicle without obtaining licence under the bye-laws. Clause (iv) of bye-law 4 similarly prohibits' from affixing or exhibiting any advertisement on any private property without a licence. Clause 5 contains procedure for issue of a licence and any person desiring a licence for any of the purposes contained in Clause 4 has to file an application for licence and along with the application he is required to give a copy of the advertisement and he is also required to give the details and the plan of the house, place and ward for which the licence is required. It further requires that for exhibiting an advertisement separate applications will have be filed and a consolidated applications will not be entertained. Clause 5 (ga) along with its proviso is an important clause and provides that on all the applications under Clause (kha) of bye-law 5 licence shall be granted either through auction of lottery. In lottery only such of the persons will be eligible to take part who have filed their applications under Clause (kha). The minimum advertisement fee shall be Rs. 10/- per sq. fit per year. The Government advertisement will be free from the fee. In lottery only such of the persons will be eligible to take part who have filed their applications under Clause (kha). The minimum advertisement fee shall be Rs. 10/- per sq. fit per year. The Government advertisement will be free from the fee. A proviso was added to Clause (ga) by notification dated April 19, 1979 and as per that proviso it was provided that in case the licensing authority considers proper then the renewal of existing advertising boards can be renewed in accordance with the bye-laws.The renewal shall be granted by increasing the previous year's licence fee by 15%. The period of licence shall be upto 31st March every year. 7. The scheme of the above bye-laws will make it clear that the licence for an advertisement under the bye-laws is to be granted from year to year and the period of licence expires on 31st March every year. Thus, the licence shall be from April 1 to March 31, of the next year. A discretion has been vested in the licencing authority in case it considers it proper to renew the licence under the bye-laws and in case the licence is renewed, it shall be renewed by increasing 15% fee on the last year's licence fee. 8. Clause 5 (Ga) of the bye-laws does not provide whether the licensing authority is to continue granting renewal under its proviso from year to year and it will only apply for the first renewal. There is no dispute that the Municipal Council has been receiving the licence fee from the petitioners and after the decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 616/ 1980 (Krishna Kumar Bhatia v. The Municipal Council, Jaipur and Ors. ) decided on April 23, 1981, the licence fee at the enhanced rate of 15% over the previous year's licence fee is being charged from the petitioners and others and they are continuing to do the business. In the aforesaid case of Krishna Kumar Bhatia (supra), this Court (Hon'ble Kasliwal, J.) examined the question whether the amendment in the proviso to Clause 5(Ga) introduced by the notification dated April 30, 1979 was retrospective or not. It was held that the amendment was not retrospective and the increase of 15% could only be with effect from the date of amendment. It was held that the amendment was not retrospective and the increase of 15% could only be with effect from the date of amendment. It appears that though, the licences have not been renewed from years to year but the Municipal Council has been charging fee, though at the increased rate, from the petitioners also. Therefore, it may be that the licences may not have been issued but the conclusion is inescapable that the petitioner were carrying on business of advertisement under the bye-laws it can be said that the licences were deemed to have been renewed by the Municipal Council from time to time. In Rajasthan Restaurant and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation Delhi, AIR 1982 SC 1550 dealing with the case of licence to run a restaurant, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that 'nowhere in the affidavit in opposition it is at all disputed that the licence fee was deposited from year to year, and accepted by the Corporation. It may be that the licence in the prescribed form may not have been issued. Therefore, it is an inescapable conclusion that the petitioners were carrying on business of restaurant pursuant to a licence issued or deemed to have been issued by the Corporation." 9. We are presently concerned with the question whether the licences under the bye-laws of the petitioners for various sites should be renewed for the year 1986-87 or not. So far as the licences for the year 1985-86 are concerned, their term has already expired on March 31, 1986 and therefore to my mind it is not necessary nor relevant whether in any of the sites the hoardings had been installed by the petitioners in contravention of bye-laws or not. It is all the more so. because it is not that the renewal of the hoardings has been refused because during the period of licencees contravention of was done any of the terms of the licence or any of the bye-laws. The Municipal Council decided not to renew the licences on the ground that by renewal it will lose a substantial amount. The question is whether any right under the bye-laws is vested in the petitioners for renewal of their licences, 10. The Municipal Council decided not to renew the licences on the ground that by renewal it will lose a substantial amount. The question is whether any right under the bye-laws is vested in the petitioners for renewal of their licences, 10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the licensing authority has not exercised independent discretion and there is no application of mind in refusing to renew the the licences of the petitioners and the licensing authority has been governed by the decision of the Administrator of the Municipal Council which is contained in Annexure 8 dated February 20, 1986 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 602/1986) on and this account the order dated March 13, 1986 deserves to be set aside. It is also contended that denial of the renewal of the licences of the petitioners amounts to disregard of the order of this Court as well as that of the Government. This Court in case of Krishna Kumar Bhatia (supra) made the following order: "It is further made clear that the Municipal Council shall consider all the applications of the petitioners by accepting renewal fee according to the rate of fee-decided above and would not refuse the grant of licence on the ground that the petitioners did not pay fee at the rate of Rs. 4.05 per sq. ft...council shall be...petitioner and in case the applicants are not disentitled to the grant of licence under the bye-laws, it shall grant renewal licence in favour of the petitioners. It would be at liberty to refuse renewal of licence in case the petitioner does not fulfil any requirement of bye-law. The Municipal Council shall refund the renewal fee charged at a higher rate from the rate determined above within one month" It may be stated that in the aforesaid case of Krishna Kumar Bhatia the only question for consideration was whether the enhanced licence fee for renewal is to be charged retrospectively or prospectively. The learned Judge was not called upon to examine the question whether under the proviso to Clause 5(Ga) of the bye-laws the Municipal Council was bound to renew the licences or it could have taken a decision not to renew the licences. The learned Judge was not called upon to examine the question whether under the proviso to Clause 5(Ga) of the bye-laws the Municipal Council was bound to renew the licences or it could have taken a decision not to renew the licences. That case cannot be said to have laid down that the licensee has right of renewal of his licence in case he is willing to pay the prescribed fee 15% over by the previous year's licence fee. The petitioners are carrying on their business of advertisement and as already stated, no renewed licence appears to have been issued to them but because the fee has been paid by them and they are allowed to continue their business of advertisement it shall be deemed that their licences were renewed under the bye-laws. A reference has already been made to proviso to Clause 5(Ga) of the bye-laws and a bare reading of the said proviso will make it clear that the discretion has been vested in the licensing authority and if the licensing authority thinks it proper to renew the licence it may renew it on the enhanced fee of 15% over the previous year's licence fee. The proviso does not provide that the licensing authority is bound to renew the licence. All that can be said in my opinion is that the licensees have a right of consideration whether their licences should be renewed or not. This Court had granted stay orders that the Municipal Council shall be free to decide applications for issue of licence under bye-laws and it was further directed that in case the applications for renewal are filed at least three weeks before the expiry of the licence, if any, the Municipal Council shall dispose of the applications for renewal also in accordance with the bye-laws. The licensing authority considered the applications filed by the petitioners and opportunity of hearing was also provided to the petitioners. The petitioners Roop Chand Maheshwari could not be present and on his behalf the adjournment was sought as it was given out that he was out of Jaipur. No doubt adjournment was not granted, but other persons were heard. The licensing authority considered the applications filed by the petitioners and opportunity of hearing was also provided to the petitioners. The petitioners Roop Chand Maheshwari could not be present and on his behalf the adjournment was sought as it was given out that he was out of Jaipur. No doubt adjournment was not granted, but other persons were heard. The licensing authority under the detailed order dated March 13, 1986 took a decision that the licences shall not be renewed and a perusal of the order Annexure R/1 of the licensing authority will show that the licensing authority has been mainly governed by the fact that in case the licences are renewed the Municipal Council is likely to suffer huge financial loss. In case the licences are given to the applicants who number more than 3000, the revenue of the Municipal Council is likely to rise atleast three times. It cannot be disputed that under Clause 5(Ga) of the bye-laws the licensing authority could invite applications for grant of licence and separate application for each of the site was to be filed by the applicants. The licences were to be granted either by auction or by lottery. The minimum licence fee at rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. has been prescribed and in case the Municipal Council considers that taking into consideration the circumstances, including the circumstance that on tenders being invited from the tenderers much more amount was offered than will be received if the licences are renewed, the question would arise, can it be said that the action of licensing authority is arbitrary and this Court should interfere. 11. The Municipal Council invited tenders vide notification dated 13/14th December, 1985 published in Rashtradoot and other daily news papers. Tenders for 195 sites amounting to Rs. 15,28,330/-(average per site Rs. 7800/-) were received. The respondent No. 2 has filed a list Annexure R/4. That notification was challenged before this Court in the writ petition and this Court had issued stay orders and the Municipal Council was directed to give licences for hoardings according to bye-laws. Thereafter, the Municipal Council invited separate applications for each site and as per the case of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for 177 sites 28 advertising companies have applied and 3240 applications have been received which works out on an average 18 applications for one site. Thereafter, the Municipal Council invited separate applications for each site and as per the case of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for 177 sites 28 advertising companies have applied and 3240 applications have been received which works out on an average 18 applications for one site. The Municipal Council expected that if the individual sites are auctioned, it is expected that the Municipal Council would receive lacs of rupees by way of licence fee and in case it grants renewal, it is expected to receive only about Rs. 3,90,000/-. A look at the order dated March 13, 1986 under Which the licensing authority has refused renewal of the licences of the petitioners will show that it has observed that there is competition among the applicants and much more revenue is likely to come to the Municipal Council if licences are given under the notification of the Municipal Council dated February 20, 1986. Under the notification dated February 20, 1986, the applications were invited for grant of licences under bye-laws for advertisement. 12. Under chapter VI of the Act, Primary and secondary functions of Board have been defined. Under Section 98 of the Act it shall be the duty of every Board to make reasonable provision for the matters mentioned in it namely, lighting public streets, place and building; (b) watering public streets and places, (c) cleaning public streets, places, sewers, and all spaces not being private property, which are open to be enjoyment of the public whether such spaces are vested in the Board or not removing noxious vegetation and preventing all public nuisances, removing filth, rubbish, night-soil, odour, or any other noxious or offensive matter from privies, latrines, urinals, cess-pools or other common receptacles for such matter in or pertaining to a building or building etc. Again in Section 99 of the Act special duties of the Board have been specified and subject to such reasonable provision as may be made under Section 98 every Board shall make reasonable provision for the special matters contained in Section 99 of the Act such as providing special medical aid and accommodation for the sick in times of dangerous disease and taking such measures as may be required to prevent the outbreak or suppress and prevent the recurrence of the disease. To discharge its primary and secondary functions every Board is required to have adequate finances. To discharge its primary and secondary functions every Board is required to have adequate finances. The greater the revenue of the Municipal council, the better it shall Be placed to discharge ist primary and secondary functions. It can therefore be said that if the licensing authority had a discretion to renew or not to renew the licence and the decision not to renew the licences has been taken in the larger public interest and to augment the revenue of the Municipal Council, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. It cannot be said, as stated earlier, that a licensee has a right of renewal of the licence and that too from year to year and the licensing authority cannot refuse renewal of licence more so, in public good. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd) Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 344 the Supreme Court observed that: "We certainly agree that judicial interference with the administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquien System of separation of powers. The Court cannot usurp or abdicate and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the Directorate of a Government company has acted fairly, even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the Court cannot as a supper auditor, take the Board of Directors to task. This function is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by rules of public administration." In Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana , AIR 1985 SC 1147 a reference was made to the case of R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 . In the case of R. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India , it has been held that the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity, with standard of norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. Thus, I am of the opinion that the action of the licensing authority not to renew the licence is in the larger interest of the Municipal.... Thus, I am of the opinion that the action of the licensing authority not to renew the licence is in the larger interest of the Municipal.... Council to augment the revenue of the Municipal Council and it cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational and irrelevant. The Municipal Council no doubt took a decision not to renew the licence but the Municipal Council could have taken such a decision and the licensing authority examined the matter independently and took a decision not to renew the licences: The very fact that more than 3000 applications were received goes to show that there is competition for each site or atleast majority of the sites. & taking into consideration the back-ground that earlier tenders for more than of Rs. 15 lacs had been received, view of the licensing authority that in case the licences are granted to the applicants and they are not renewed, the revenue of the Municipal Council will be augmented, the decision of the licensing authority cannot be said to be arbitrary. 13. Consequently, I do not find any merit in any of the writ petitions. But the writ petitions are disposed of as under:The licencing authority shall auction each public 'site on Municipal land for hoarding after proper publicity in a daily Hindi local news paper as well as one daily English news paper and if it so likes also in All India English daily news paper. The date, time and place and programme for auction of each site shall be mentioned therein. In case for any site there is no bidder or that bid offered is less than the previous year's licence fee+ 15%, that site will given to such of the petitioners, who is holding the licences after increasing 15% over the previous year' licence fee. In case in auction the bid offered by any bidder for any site is more, then it shall go to the highest bidder. So far as licences to the owner/owners of private buildings be abutting public way or are visible from these area arc concerned, they will not be given by auction and will be given in terms of Clause 13 of the Bye-laws. Costs made easy.Writ Dismissed. *******