JUDGMENT Mr. M.M. Kumar, J.: - This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for declaring the Haryana Municipalities Outdoor Advertising Policy-2010 (for brevity, ‘the 2010 Policy’) as null and void. The ‘2010 Policy’ after its approval by the Council of Ministers in the meeting held on 4.2.2010, was circulated in the respondent State of Haryana on 16.2.2010 with a direction that it has superseded the Haryana Municipal (Control on Advertisement) Bye-laws, 2008, which were notified on 5.5.2008 and all other subsequent instructions issued thereafter. It has further been stated in the said communication that all outdoor advertisements would be governed by the 2010 Policy (P-4). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of advertising and publicity. The Municipal Corporation, Faridabad-respondent No. 2 (for brevity, ‘the Corporation’) apparently is an institution of self Government constituted under Part-IXA of the Constitution and, thus, is an agency of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. On 12.10.2010, the Corporation issued a notice inviting sealed tenders from the agencies for the grant of advertising rights on BOT basis for three years on Bus-Q-Shelters, Unipoles, Gantries, Kiosks on Street Light Poles, Urinals/Toilets with daily maintenance, Garbage Collection Centre, Attendance Sheds and LED based Video Walls specified by the Corporation. The last date for submitting the tender was 16.11.2010. Various conditions were also incorporated in the said notice (P-3). 3. It is undisputed that the tender in question was floated jointly for all type of medias fixing minimum reserve price of Rs.11 crores, which is allegedly beyond the financial capacity of an entrepreneur like the petitioner and he could not participate in the tender process. In other words, as per the tender document all type of medias in the limits of the Corporation were to be considered as a whole and given to a single bidder. After inquiry the petitioner came to know about the ‘2010 Policy’ (P-4) framed by the respondent State of Haryana in exercise of powers under Sections 200 (P) and 214 read with Sections 88, 392, 393 and 394 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). 4. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by clause 5(a) of the Guiding Principles contained in the ‘2010 Policy’. Clause 5 prescribes the procedure for grant of permission which reads as under: “5. 4. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by clause 5(a) of the Guiding Principles contained in the ‘2010 Policy’. Clause 5 prescribes the procedure for grant of permission which reads as under: “5. Procedure for grant of permission: The policy shall apply to all the municipal areas in the State and shall cover all lands/properties belonging to al State Govt. Departments, Boards and Corporations unless specifically exempted by the Govt. a) The permission to put up advertisement on municipal land/building shall be granted by inviting tenders for a town/City as a whole. No tender quoting the rates below the reserve price as decided by a committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporation and Deputy Commissioner in case of Municipal Councils/Committees, including local concerned officers and Commissioner, Executive Officer/Secretary shall be accepted. The committee shall decide the reserve price on the basis of the following, among other parameters. i) Location of the site. ii) Size of the advertisement board/banner. iii) Past revenue collection; and iv) number of sites. The advertisement rights shall be given for a period of three years or as may be decided. It shall be terminable at three months notice. In the event of default of terms it shall be terminable forthwith. b) to f) xxx xxx xxx” 5. In the backdrop of the above factual premise the petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the ‘2010 Policy’ as also the power of the respondent State of Haryana to frame such a policy making it binding on the Corporation. 6. In the written statement filed by the respondent State of Haryana-respondent No. 1, the stand taken is that the 2010 Policy is within the parameters of law. In para 5, reliance has been placed on Section 200 (P) of the Act, which empowered the State Government to make bye-laws for the Municipalities. In respect of Corporation reliance has been placed on Section 88 of the Act. It has been further asserted that the Corporation being an instrumentality of the State is free to adopt any policy including the one framed by the State Government and the 2010 Policy did not bind the Corporation. 7. In its written statement, the Corporation has taken the stand that the 2010 Policy, in fact, has been adopted, although the date of adoption/resolution has not been disclosed. 7. In its written statement, the Corporation has taken the stand that the 2010 Policy, in fact, has been adopted, although the date of adoption/resolution has not been disclosed. It has further been submitted that being an instrumentality of the State, the Corporation is bound to implement/adopt any policy framed by the State of Haryana. Since the resolution adopting the policy was not placed on record, the case was adjourned to enable the Corporation to file additional affidavit along with the resolution, vide order dated 16.11.2011. 8. Pursuant thereto an affidavit of Shri N.K. Katara, Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. Along with the affidavit, a resolution of the Municipal Corporation for amendment in the 2010 Policy, has also been filed, which has been approved by circulation. According to the resolution passed by circulation on 22.11.2011, the Corporation has decided to amend the ‘2010 Policy’. There are six categories carved out in the last but one para, which deserves to be quoted:- “Accordingly a resolution proposed before the House for further amendments in the policy which are as under:- 1. Advertisement rights shall be given for 5 years instead of 3 years. 2. The tenders shall be called for whole MCF area for Unipoles, over head directional board, Kiosks and Video Walls excluding the Utilities services. 3. A separate tenders shall be called for Urinals, Garbage Collection Centers & Employee Attendance shed for whole Municipal Corporation, Faridabad area. 4. Tender for Paid Parking on BOT basis shall be called separately. 5. The tenders for 328 Bus-Q-Shelter which are necessary for city bus service shall be called on long term basis for 20 years on BOT basis separately. 6. Tender for foot over bridge at B.K. Neelam Road, Dayanand College for Women and near NH-1+2 crossing may be called separately on long terms BOT basis for 20 years.” 9. To a pointed question asked by the Court, Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the Corporation has stated after obtaining instructions from Shri Anil Mehta, Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, that for all the six individual items stated in the resolution of the Corporation, any individual could file tender in respect of one item as well. To a pointed question asked by the Court, Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the Corporation has stated after obtaining instructions from Shri Anil Mehta, Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, that for all the six individual items stated in the resolution of the Corporation, any individual could file tender in respect of one item as well. In other words, there is no bar on an applicant to apply for 328 Bus-Q-Shelter, as is given in Item No. 5, if he does not want to apply for all the six. The aforesaid statement of Mr. Bhardwaj, in fact, puts an end to the controversy that the Corporation was trying to create monopoly in the hand of one person by permitting only one tenderor alone to come forward to apply for all the items. 10. Another grievance made by Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is with regard to the provision creating obligation of a tenderor to prevent defacement of area, which figures at Sr. No. 5 of the proposal (R-2/E). As per this clause, the successful bidder of the tender, has been made responsible to stop any kind of defacement by way of illegal hoardings, banners/posters or by any other mean of illegal advertisement on Government buildings/properties. In the absence of failure to stop defacement then the successful bidder of the tender has to remove the same at his own cost. Mr. Sinhal has argued that this condition cannot be imposed because there is no enforcement agency with the tenderor to stop or remove the illegal hoardings, banners/posters etc. 11. Once the condition in the tender has been incorporated we feel that the tenderor can always count expenses of such an item while submitting the tender and accordingly quote the rates. There is nothing illegal in the aforesaid condition and we uphold the same. 12. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.