1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 162 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 190 OF 2009 M/s.In & Out Advertising Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant v/s The Municpal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent Mr.V.J.Hegde for the appellant. Smt.K.K.Soraan for the Corporation. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 11TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. The appeal has been preferred against the order passed in the notice of motion by which the contention of the appellant has been rejected and the notice of motion had been dismissed. 2. The appellant is an advertiser who has put up a hoarding in a compound of a building. It appears that the 2 hoarding is at the distance of only 2 meters from the earliest hoarding in the compound. In view of that, the Corporation has issued notice requiring the appellant to remove the hoarding since it violates the new policy guidelines issued in the year 2008. 2. In my opinion, the appellant’s case that the hoarding does not violate the policy guidelines is unacceptable. Clause 7 of the new policy guidelines stipulate that the distance between two hoardings should not be less than 20 meters. However, if the hoardings are placed back to back, the minimum distance stipulated need not be maintained. A circular has been issued clarifying the New Policy Guidelines on 29.10.2009. Clause 11 of this circular clarifies the new policy guidelines with respect to Clause 7(b) which stipulates that the minimum distance norm shall not apply to V-shaped and sandwich hoardings (back to back). A clarification was sought from the Additional Municipal Commissioner (City) as to whether the criteria of minimum distance between two hoardings can be exempted in respect of two hoardings erected in a back to back position of two different agencies and in different compounds of two adjoining buildings having common wall and when the distance between the two display boards is not more than 3 feet. By this clarification issued, appropriate decisions are to 3 be taken in sporadic cases by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Spl.)/A.M.C. (City). The applicant has made an application for reconsideration of his case on 10.12.2009. 3. In the present case, the order dated 4.11.2008 indicates that the distance between the two hoardings is two meters and therefore is more than 3 feet. Apart from this, photographs have been produced which indicate that both the hoardings are in the same compound and, therefore, no interim relief can be granted to the appellant. 4. In my view, the appeal from order need not be admitted. Appeal dismissed. 5. The application which has been made, will be considered on its own merits by the Additional Municipal Commissioner (City), uninfluenced by the order of the City Civil Court or by this order. 6. Mr.Hegde appearing for the applicant has sought a continuation of the stay which has been granted earlier. Stay refused. 7. In view of dismissal of the appeal from order, the civil application also stands dismissed. ..... 4 5