License fee liability commences from actual site availability when third-party obstructions prevent timely installation.

The petitioner was allotted two advertisement sites (unipoles) by the respondent (MCD) on February 23, 2012, for a three-year period at a monthly license fee (MLF) of Rs. 71,111/- per site.

Installation was obstructed by the Public Works Department (PWD) on policy grounds.

In a prior writ petition [W.P.(C) 4375/2012], the High Court directed on April 26, 2013, that the three-year license period would commence from the date of erection, provided the petitioner erected the unipoles within two weeks.

continued PWD resistance led the petitioner to file contempt proceedings [Cont. Cas(C) 643/2013], which were eventually withdrawn on July 1, 2014, following PWD assurances.

Initially, MCD demanded MLF starting from May 2014.

In December 2017, MCD revised the demand to commence from May 2013, arguing that the two-week window granted in the 2013 court order expired that month.

1. Whether the respondent/MCD was justified in revising the commencement date of the Monthly License Fee (MLF) from May 2014 back to May 2013, despite documented third-party (PWD) obstructions.

2. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest on the arrears of the MLF for the period the sites were occupied.

The Court applied the principle of administrative fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

It relied on the doctrine that a party cannot be penalized for non-performance of a timeline (erection within two weeks) when such performance is rendered impossible by the actions of another government instrumentality (PWD).

the court emphasized the finality of the respondent's original assessment (demanding fees from 2014) unless justified by a material change in facts.

The Court scrutinized the history of litigation between the parties, particularly the contempt proceedings against PWD officials. It noted that the record of the contempt case [Con. Cas(C) 643/2013] and the orders therein "amply demonstrate" that the petitioner was prevented from erecting the unipoles until May 2014 due to PWD hindrances.

The Court rejected MCD’s contention that it was unaware of the contempt proceedings, holding that the physical hindrance by a state authority (PWD) was a matter of record.

It further observed that MCD had itself originally assessed the MLF liability to begin in May 2014; the subsequent decision two years later to retroactively shift the date to May 2013 was deemed "completely arbitrary and unjustified".

The Court concluded that the license period and the concomitant liability to pay MLF could only trigger from the point the site became functionally available to the petitioner.

The Court directed the petitioner to clear the dues within two weeks, allowing for the adjustment of security deposits and previous payments.

Additionally, the Court held the petitioner liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the MLF amounts from their respective due dates until the date of actual payment.