JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. 1. Petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of concession agreement dated 06.05.2017/20.09.2017, executed by respondent no. 1, in favour of respondent no. 2, thereby granting the right to construct, operate, utilize and maintain 34 Traffic Booths and 20 Traffic Umbrellas for the purpose of promotion and advertisement of their and/or their client displays. A further writ has been sought directing the respondent no. 1 not to allow the display of any advertisement upon Traffic Booth and Traffic Umbrella in pursuance to the concession agreement dated 06.05.2017/20.09.2017 executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 should also be prohibited from displaying any advertisement in pursuance to the concession agreement dated 06.05.2017/20.09.2017 executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2. 2. Brief facts, necessary for adjudicating the controversy in hand, are that petitioner no. 2 is engaged in the advertising business and is carrying on the advertising business under the name and style 'Catalyst Advertising Media' and is the sole proprietor of petitioner no. 1 company. From time to time, the petitioners have been participating in the advertisement tenders invited by respondent no. 1 and at present the petitioners have contract of 15434 pole kiosks and its contract value is Rs. 1,15,31,000/-. The said advertisement contract was granted by respondent no. 1 to the petitioners and the same is valid for the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.01.2020. The control over the advertisements within the area of Nagar Nigam and grant of permission/license is solely within the jurisdiction of Nagar Nigam. As per Section 305 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (as applicable in State of Uttarakhand) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], no person is entitled to erect, fix or retain any sky-sign of any kind without the permission of Municipal Commissioner which can be granted by the Municipal commissioner maximum for a period not exceeding two years' from the date of such permission. As per Section 306 of said Act, the regulation and control of advertisements is also within the jurisdiction of Nagar Nigam and the Municipal Commissioner is authorized to take down or remove unauthorized hoardings and also to realize the expenses in case of unauthorized hoardings or advertisements. 3. As per Section 306 of said Act, the regulation and control of advertisements is also within the jurisdiction of Nagar Nigam and the Municipal Commissioner is authorized to take down or remove unauthorized hoardings and also to realize the expenses in case of unauthorized hoardings or advertisements. 3. The Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, exercising the powers under Section 541(48) of said Act has also framed byelaws in the year 2010, which are known as Nagar Nigam Byelaws, 2010. The areas where the hoardings/advertisements can be permitted are described in the said byelaws. It is specifically provided in clause 7 of the byelaws that within an area of 25 meters, no hoarding/unipoles would be fixed in Chowk (intersection) and crossing. Clause nos. 9 and 10 provide that only those agencies would be registered for advertising permission for taking part in the bid, whose proprietor is permanent resident of Uttarakhand and the companies which are registered outside have to take a local person in the management. Clause no. 19 speaks about prohibition for putting advertisement in trisection (tiraha) upto an extent of 25 meters. 4. The State of Uttarakhand exercising the powers under Section 540 of the Act has also framed Rules known as Uttarakhand Nagar Nigam (Advertising Permission and Assessment and Collection of Taxes of Advertising) Rules, 2015. In addition to the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008 and the Nagar Nigam Byelaws, 2010, the Uttarakhand Nagar Nigam (Advertising Permission and Assessment and Collection of Taxes on Advertising) Rules, 2015 are also binding upon respondent no. 1 while granting the advertisement rights/contracts. 5. Relevant Rules of Uttarakhand Nagar Nigam (Advertising Permission and Assessment and collection of Taxes on Advertising) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 2015 Rules'), are as under: "(a) Rule no. 3 - The places where the advertisement is to be displayed looking into safe and facile (convenient) traffic. The places for displaying advertisements would be decided by a Committee of seven members, who shall be as under: (b) Rule no. 11 - The permission for display of advertisement would be granted maximum for a period of two years." 6. In addition to the Rule and Byelaws, the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008 were also not followed in the present case. As per Rule 32 of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008, any person taking part in any contract, is required to be registered with the Local Body. Respondent no. In addition to the Rule and Byelaws, the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008 were also not followed in the present case. As per Rule 32 of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008, any person taking part in any contract, is required to be registered with the Local Body. Respondent no. 2 was not registered with the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun when he was granted the contract by respondent no. 1 for display of advertisement. 7. It is stated that grant of license by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2 for a period of 15 years is against the law and the execution of license agreement dated 06.05.2017/20.09.2017 between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 is illegal, void-ab-initio and against the law. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 in complete disregard of the above provisions has granted the right to construction, operate, utilize and maintain 34 Traffic Booths and 20 Traffic Umbrellas for the purpose of promotion and advertisement of their and/or their clients for displays for a period of 15 years and a concession agreement to this effect was duly executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2 on 20.09.2017. As per condition nos. 3 and 4 of the Concession Agreement, the respondent no. 2 was granted 6 months time for carrying out the said work and it was stipulated in the said condition that the license fee shall commence after 6 months from signing of the agreement. It is also stated that though the agreement date is 06.05.2017, but the e-stamp annexed with the said agreement is dated 20.09.2017. Thus an ante date agreement has been prepared. Also, license fee was to be paid within 6 months from the date of signing of agreement, but no license fee was deposited by respondent no. 2 with respondent no. 1 till 08.03.2018, as is evident from the information obtained by the petitioner from respondent no. 1 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 8. It is contended that the petitioners came to know about the above license/agreement only in the month of January 2018 and, thereafter, they have sought certain information under the right to Information Act, 2005 and in response thereof, it was informed that no license fee has been deposited by respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 8. It is contended that the petitioners came to know about the above license/agreement only in the month of January 2018 and, thereafter, they have sought certain information under the right to Information Act, 2005 and in response thereof, it was informed that no license fee has been deposited by respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 started displaying the advertisements since the month of April 2018, and he has obtained the permission in violation of the provisions of Nagar Nigam Byelaws, 2010, as well as the relevant Rules and Regulations regulating the grant and display of advertisements. It is also contended that granting permission to respondent no. 2 by respondent no. 1 to construct, operate, utilize and maintain 34 traffic booths and 20 traffic umbrellas for the purpose of promotion and advertisement of their and/or his client displays for a period of 15 years, is illegal and against the relevant Rules and Regulations. Respondent no. 2 has not got itself registered with the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun and, as such, was not entitled to any permission to participate in any tender floated by the Nagar Nigam or grant of any right in respect of display of advertisements. Furthermore, since the places where the advertisement has to be displayed are duly mentioned in the Nagar Nigam Byelaws, 2010, as such, no permission could be granted for display of any advertisement on traffic booths and traffic umbrellas. 9. Rule 3 of 2015 Rules has not been complied with. Moreover, no advertisement is to be put in Chowk (intersection) or Tiraha (trisection) upto a distance of 25 meters, but the permission has been granted on chowk/intersection and trisection. Respondent no. 1 has granted the permission for advertisement for a period of 15 years, whereas as per the Nagar Nigam Byelaws, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Byelaws') and Section 305 of the Act, the permission for advertisement can not be granted for a period exceeding two years. 10. It is specifically mentioned in the writ petition that the display of advertisements on traffic booths and traffic umbrellas is not feasible from safety point of view, as the same may cause accidents and nowhere in the country, advertisement is permitted to be displayed on such booths and umbrellas. Petitioners, who have been granted advertisement rights of pole kiosks, for which they have a valid contract, as such, grant of permission to respondent no. Petitioners, who have been granted advertisement rights of pole kiosks, for which they have a valid contract, as such, grant of permission to respondent no. 2 by respondent no. 1 for construction, operating, utilizing and maintaining 34 traffic booths and 20 traffic umbrellas for the purpose of promotion and advertisement for a period of 15 years in order to regulate the display of advertisements will adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. 11. Respondent no. 1 filed its counter affidavit mentioning therein that the bid proceedings has already been finalized by the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun and the highest bidder has been awarded the contract under Public-Private-Partnership (PPP mode). The contract which was given to respondent no. 2 was earlier advertised in the year 2016 and was cancelled due to less number of count in the meeting. In the year 2016, the tender was published in the newspaper on 30.09.2016 and in the pre-bid meeting, the son of petitioner also participated, which clearly shows that the petitioner firm had knowledge of the advertisement published by the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun for construction of 34 Police Booths and 20 Traffic umbrellas under PPP mode. In the said tender process respondent no. 2 was the highest bidder with Rs. 55,11,000/- and the tender was awarded to it on 16.12.2016 and an agreement to this effect was signed with Nagar Nigam, Dehradun on 06.05.2017 under PPP mode for a period of 15 years. 12. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the auction proceedings to construct, operate and utilize 34 police booths and 20 traffic umbrellas under the PPP mode for the period of 15 years has been made with regard to the provisions of the Uttarakhand Nagar Nigam (Advertising Permission and Assessment and Collection of Tax on Advertising) Rules, 2015, which specifically provides under the Rule 28 that none of the provisions of this Rule will be applicable on the advertisement and advertisement boards which has been proposed to be given by the State Government or the local bodies under the PPP mode. In pursuance to the tender awarded to respondent no. 2 on 16.12.2016, respondent no. 2 deposited the amount with the respondent no. 1 and as per the agreement it has been given six months time to construct the police booths and traffic umbrellas. In pursuance to the tender awarded to respondent no. 2 on 16.12.2016, respondent no. 2 deposited the amount with the respondent no. 1 and as per the agreement it has been given six months time to construct the police booths and traffic umbrellas. It is specially mentioned in para 9 of the counter affidavit that as per the provisions of Rule 3 of Regulation 2015, the place selection committee has been constituted for the purpose of the advertisement was made on 13.06.2017 and the right has been given for the period of 2 years only, but in the present case, the agreement was made under the PPP mode for 15 years and the provisions of Rule 2015 will not be applicable in the case, where advertisement rights were given under the PPP mode. It is also stated that earlier respondent no. 1 also made the contract under the PPP mode for the purpose of bus and queue shelter for 15 years. The provision of the 2015 Rules is not applicable in the case of giving the right of advertisement under the PPP mode by Nagar Nigam, Dehradun. Hence, the pleading raised by the petitioner that the contract has wrongly been given more than 2 years has no force. Therefore, there is no illegality in awarding the contract to respondent no. 2. 13. Respondent no. 2 also filed its counter affidavit. It has been stated in said counter affidavit that respondent no. 2 was the highest and successful bidder in the fifth tender notification issued by Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, for construction, maintenance and publication of advertisements for recovery of expenses of traffic police booth and traffic umbrellas vide Notification dated 02.10.2014, on PPP mode for 15 years. Respondent no. 1 executed licensed agreement with respondent no. 2 for aforesaid work on 06.05.2017 in furtherance to Letter of Acceptance dated 29.12.2016. On 02.06.2017, after the inauguration, respondent no. 2 is successfully operating the aforesaid Traffic Police Booth and Umbrellas at different locations of Dehradun city. It is stated that respondent no. 2 has completed installation of 26 Traffic Police Booths and 20 Umbrellas within six months. 14. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. On 02.06.2017, after the inauguration, respondent no. 2 is successfully operating the aforesaid Traffic Police Booth and Umbrellas at different locations of Dehradun city. It is stated that respondent no. 2 has completed installation of 26 Traffic Police Booths and 20 Umbrellas within six months. 14. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 that in regard to maintainability of writ petition the petitioners does not have any locus standi for filing the present petition as there is no violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The petitioner no. 2 had participated in the pre bid of the said tender through his son, however, he did not make any financial bids to the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun for the same for the reasons best known to him. Now when the said tender is allotted by the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun to the respondent no. 2 by following the appropriate procedure the petitioner no. 2 is wrongly and falsely challenging the same only with an intention to cause loss and damage to respondent no. 2. It is further stated that the act of petitioner firm in challenging the said tender after the award thereof and successful execution of the Traffic Police Booth and Umbrellas at different locations of Dehradun City is nothing but mala fide act on behalf of the petitioner who operates a local advertising business in the city of Dehradun and is now acting as a business rival to respondent no. 2. Lastly it is stated that Nagar Nigam, Dehradun has duly followed the tender process in allotting the said tender to the respondent no. 2 under the PPP mode and there is no infirmity or irregularity in award of the said tender. There were several stages in the technical bids and 03 companies participated in the tender technical qualification, presentation and thereafter technical qualification was done with marking system. After the qualifying bids were considered, then only the financial bids were opened and awarded to respondent no. 2. 15. In the rejoinder affidavit filed in response to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 it is categorically stated that respondent no. 1 Nagar Nigam is wrongly construing the 'Byelaws of 2010' as 'Rules' and has wrongly contended that the said Byelaws were amended on 16.02.2018. It is wrong to say that the Rules of 2015 have the overriding effect on earlier rules. 1 it is categorically stated that respondent no. 1 Nagar Nigam is wrongly construing the 'Byelaws of 2010' as 'Rules' and has wrongly contended that the said Byelaws were amended on 16.02.2018. It is wrong to say that the Rules of 2015 have the overriding effect on earlier rules. Prior to 2015, no rules were framed by the Government and the Byelaws framed by the Nagar Nigam are still in existence, as the said Byelaws were never repealed or modified by the Government at any point of time. It is further stated that respondent no. 1 is misconstruing the 'Byelaws' as well as the 'Rules' for which there are different provisions under the Act. The right to frame the Byelaws has been given in Sub-Section (48) of Section 541 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, and as per Section 544, the said Byelaws are to be published in the Official Gazette. The Byelaws of 2010 were framed in accordance with law and were also published in the Official Gazette. Lastly it is contended that the nature of the permission granted for advertisement to respondent no. 2, in no way, can be termed as Public-Private Partnership (PPP), as there is no share of profit, but awarding contract to it is merely a disguise for grant of advertisement rights for a period of 15 years. 16. In the rejoinder affidavit in response to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2, the averments made in the writ petition are reiterated. In reply to contents of para 8 of the counter affidavit in regard to calling for the tender for the fourth time, it is stated that the same has no relevance in the present case. It is contended that as per the information obtained by petitioner no. 2, the local advertisers have pointed out that there is no provision for inviting tenders for more than 2 years. Moreover, the Nagar Nigam has no right to invite any tenders against the provisions of the Act as well as the Byelaws. None of the petitioners has submitted any tenders; and a pre-bid participation of the son of the petitioner no. 2 has no relevance to the point in issue. Son of petitioner no. 2 has no concern with the petitioner no. 1 firm and petitioner no. 2 is the sole proprietor of petitioner no. 1 firm. None of the petitioners has submitted any tenders; and a pre-bid participation of the son of the petitioner no. 2 has no relevance to the point in issue. Son of petitioner no. 2 has no concern with the petitioner no. 1 firm and petitioner no. 2 is the sole proprietor of petitioner no. 1 firm. In reply to the contents of para 9 of the counter affidavit, which relates to inviting of tender for the fifth time, it is stated that the act of inviting tenders against the Act of 1959 as well as the Byelaws framed by the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, does not legalize the illegal act on the part of respondent no. 1 or illegal grant of permission of advertisement to respondent no. 2. In reply to contents of para 12 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that it is totally incorrect that the respondent no. 2 has incurred an expenses of Rs. 1,69,86,212/- as against the capital expenditure of Rs. 88,00,000/- as mentioned by the Nagar Nigam. It is submitted that respondent no. 2 has not constructed any new police booths or traffic umbrellas and has merely done some repairs/renovation or mere painting on the already existing police booths and traffic umbrellas. It is categorically stated that, in fact, grant of a contract is merely a disguise to accommodate respondent no. 2 in advertisement business against the provisions contained in the Act and Byelaws. 17. Heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. At the very outset learned counsel for the respondent raised an argument regarding locus standi of the petitioners. Undisputedly, the petitioners are engaged in the advertising business and from time to time had participated in the tender inviting advertisement by respondent no. 1. Petitioners did not submit their tender. The contention of respondent no. 2 is that petitioner no. 2 had participated in the pre bid of the said tender through his son. The said contention will not affect the locus of the petitioners as the father is not responsible for the acts of his son. Every citizen has an individual right and has a legal remedy available to him. Therefore, the petitioners have a locus to maintain the writ petition. The objection raised by the respondent no. 2 that the petitioners have no locus is misconceived. Every citizen has an individual right and has a legal remedy available to him. Therefore, the petitioners have a locus to maintain the writ petition. The objection raised by the respondent no. 2 that the petitioners have no locus is misconceived. It is held that the petitioners have locus standi to maintain the writ petition. 19. Now, the second moot question involved in the case is as to whether the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun has awarded the contract in favour of the respondent no. 2 in violation of the provisions contained in the Act and Rules framed thereunder as well as the Procurement Rules. Undisputedly, Section 305 of the Act stipulates granting permission for advertisement for a maximum period of two years only, but the contract has been awarded in regard to the public property for a period of 15 years. The contract awarded to the respondent no. 2 is vitiated for the following reasons: i) That the period of 15 years to grant the license was not mentioned in the advertisement. ii) Rule 32 of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008 provides that any person taking part in any contract is required to be registered with the local body. Respondent no. 2 without being registered with Nagar Nigam, Dehradun was awarded contract by it. Thus, respondent no. 2 was not eligible to submit the tender. As such, allotment of tender in its favour by respondent no. 1 is illegal and violative of Rule 32 of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008. iii) In view of the Regulations, the respondent no. 2 ought to have deposited the license fee within six months from the date of signing the agreement, but the same has been deposited after the expiry of six months, whereof no time was extended to deposit the license fee. iv) Nowhere in the country, are advertisement permitted to be displayed on traffic booths and traffic umbrellas. The Rules and Regulations of the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun also does not permit the same. Thus, the contract has illegally been awarded in favour of respondent no. 2 without having considered the safety of commuters and general public at large. 20. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment passed in the case of Outdoors Communication vs. PWD and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2007 (2) CTLJ 179 Del, has held thus: "30. Thus, the contract has illegally been awarded in favour of respondent no. 2 without having considered the safety of commuters and general public at large. 20. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment passed in the case of Outdoors Communication vs. PWD and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2007 (2) CTLJ 179 Del, has held thus: "30. The Indian Road Congress has also brought out the guidelines titled as 'Policy on Roadside Advertisements' which has been placed before this Court by the defendant no. 2. This document provides clear guidelines as to which advertisements would be considered objectionable. It also shows application of mind to the aspect of the reaction of drivers, time required in responding to the requirement to stop the vehicle etc. 42. From the perusal of the above directions by the court, it is noteworthy that the court clearly defined a hoarding which would be 'hazardous and a disturbance to safe traffic movement so as to adversely affect free flow of traffic and it was clearly stated that the hazardous hoarding which is a disturbance to safe traffic movement, has to be a hoarding visible to the road. Thereby, any discretion which the authorities could read unto themselves was also taken away in view of the clear directions of the Apex Court. The court also directed the authorities to remove 'every hoarding irrespective of whether it is on the roadside or not' which is hazardous and a disturbance to traffic; that is those which are visible to the traffic. 131. However, the essence of such a display, whether called a hoarding or an advertisement or a graphic display or a unipole is something that it is meant to attract the attention of those who can view it and be so attractive or attention getting so as to certainly compel the viewer to continue to look at it so as to absorb or understand the contents of the display. Whether or not the same is absorbed, the spirit, purpose and intendment of such a display is certainly to ensure that the viewer is adequately attracted to the display to view/read its contents. Whether or not the same is absorbed, the spirit, purpose and intendment of such a display is certainly to ensure that the viewer is adequately attracted to the display to view/read its contents. Fort this purpose, the advertiser utilizes every medium possible so as to make the display either visually so eye-catching so that a viewer is compelled to look at it not once but repeatedly or to make it so interesting, whether by incorporating humour or by incorporating such content so as to call the attention of the viewer. The hoardings include pictures of actors, sport persons or any other person who is enjoying not only a position of importance but social popularity or cartoon figures as well as the products of the advertiser. 146. Permitting graphic displays/Unipoles, or by any other name, advertisements in such an environment has been held by the Apex Court to be hazardous to safe driving. Certainly, the same would amount to action which may impinge upon or have the effect of distracting a driver's attention from the road. The distraction may be in any manner or for any length of time and ought not to be countenanced. Traffic displays, Unipoles, advertisements or hoardings at round abouts at traffic intersections, at traffic inlands or on pavements certainly are intended to attract the attention of the road users. There is not even a pretence of consideration of black spots and vision blocks which are bound to come into existence or of the impact of additional structures roundabout, traffic island, etc. in an already pressurised environment. 148. In the present case, this Court is concerned with Unipoles or hoardings. What is there to be said of a city where the pavements, crossings and corners are peppered with florists, shops, milk booths have turned into grocery stores, STD booths, pan and cigarette vendors etc. Each one of these has mushroomed into a drive in or drive up mini-super market by itself with indiscriminate parking by the customers on all busy roads. Whither go concerns of either the road or the pavements; of either the driver or the pedestrians. It certainly would be enlightening to know if the traffic police sanctioned these. 154. Certainly the propensity to overshoot the zebra crossing at a traffic signal because you were distracted in any manner is greater than if there was no such distraction. Whither go concerns of either the road or the pavements; of either the driver or the pedestrians. It certainly would be enlightening to know if the traffic police sanctioned these. 154. Certainly the propensity to overshoot the zebra crossing at a traffic signal because you were distracted in any manner is greater than if there was no such distraction. While you admire or are distracted by an attractive graphic display/advertisement, you may also overlook a pedestrian. Prohibitions as in traffic regulations and street management are not to be found from figures but are based on the expected conduct of the ordinary and reasonable man. Merely because no accident may occur because of speeding would not justify that the prohibition on the speed limit be removed. It is the propensity to distract which has to be avoided, apart from other considerations relating to pavement users, the health of the citizens which includes mental and psychological concerns, considerations of environment, constraints of space etc. which have gone into the formulation and implementation of these provisions and policies. 162. In this background, I have no hesitation in holding that in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 permitting the plaintiff to install Unipoles is opposed to public policy and is unlawful as well. 163. Ms. Shweta Bharti, learned counsel for the plaintiff has made a vehement submission that in case this Court arrives at a conclusion that the contract in the instant case is barred by law or opposed to public policy, then the plaintiff would be entitled to restitution and consequently, the MCD would require to refund the amounts which have been received. There is no such claim in the plaint which has been filed by the plaintiff. It is well settled that relief at this stage cannot be beyond the prayer made by the plaintiff in the suit. Needless to say, as a consequence of the findings of this Court, it shall be open for the plaintiff to seek appropriate relief as it may be entitled to. 164. In view of the above discussion, the defendant no. 1 has pointed out that road widening is impacted by the unipoles. The contract of the plaintiff with the defendant no. 1 has been found to be contrary to law and opposed to public policy. 164. In view of the above discussion, the defendant no. 1 has pointed out that road widening is impacted by the unipoles. The contract of the plaintiff with the defendant no. 1 has been found to be contrary to law and opposed to public policy. There is thus no equity in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and orders of the Apex Court, grave and irreparable loss should ensure to the public at large in case the relief is granted to the plaintiff. There is also no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. 165. It is well settled that larger interest of the environment and of the public would override all individual concerns as has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court." 21. Normally, the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction should not interfere in contractual matters, but there is a caveat to it that when authorities while granting a contract has exceeded their limits and entered into a contract in a manner against the rules, regulations and provisions made for such a contract. Since, this Court has observed that the contract has been awarded in violation of the provisions contained in Section 305 of the Act, which provides two years contract and 15 years contract has been granted and further Rule 32 of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules have been violated and furthermore, the advertisement has been permitted against the byelaws and rules as discussed in paragraph no. 18 in the body of the judgment, this Court is of the view that respondent no. 1 has extended undue benefit in awarding the contract to respondent no. 2, which compelled this Court to interfere with the illegal exercise done by respondent no. 2. 22. In view of the findings recorded by this Court it is a fit case which requires interference of this Court as display of advertisement on traffic booths and traffic umbrellas is not feasible from safety point of view. Furthermore, the respondent no. 1 Nagar Nigam, Dehradun has totally failed to take note of the fact that the contract has been awarded on a meager amount in favour of the respondent no. 2 against the provisions contained in the Act, Rules and byelaws. 23. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Concession agreement dated 06.05.2017/20.09.2017, executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2 against the provisions contained in the Act, Rules and byelaws. 23. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Concession agreement dated 06.05.2017/20.09.2017, executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2, is hereby quashed. Respondent no. 1 is directed not to allow respondent no. 2 to display the advertisement upon traffic booths and traffic umbrellas in pursuance of the concession agreement dated 06.05.2017/20.09.2017. 24. No order as to costs.