wwra/ SQNQLE BEMH IN THE HIGH coum- OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR wRIT PETITIoN (c) No. i514 of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS M/s Bhinsar'a EnTer‘prises, a proprie‘ror‘ship firm fhrough ifs sole proprie’ror' SmT. Sumem Begum, wife of Mohammad Akram, aged 5O years, Occupa’rion—Business, residen'r of Thakur' Road, Jagdalpur‘ (CG) W 1. Sfa’re of Chhm‘fisgarh, ’rhr‘ough The Secretary, Deparfmenf of Urban Adminisfrafion & Developmenf, Manfralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. . Municipal Corpora’rion, Jagdaipur fhrough ifs Commissioner, Municipal f Corporafion, Jagdalpur (CG) )r3. Commissioner, Municipal Corporafion, Jagdalpur (CG) \N ’P WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , Arr—g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1526 OF 2011 PETITIONER M/s Bhinsara Enterprises Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench 2 Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present '.- Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate for the respondents No.2&3. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 11‘ day of July, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the notice dated 15-1 1-2010 (Annexure - P/4) issued by the respondent No.3. Learned counsel appeat‘Lr’Lg for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of advertisement. For the said purpose the buildings of Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur as well astprivate buiidings are used. For putting hoardings the Municipal Corporation is charging the exhibition and licence fees. However, all of a sudden the respondent No.3 is restraining the petitioner from placing its hoardings on the terrace of the private buildings and compelling the petitioner to handover its private space which the petitioner has taken on rent and a notice dated 15-11~201O was issued to the petitioner. It was emphatically- contended by Shri Shrivastava that the're was an agreement between the private building owner and the petitioner and the hoardings were placed on the terraceof the private building. Thus, the authorities cannot put any restriction or regulation. 4. According to Shri Shrivastava, the petitioner replied to the said notice on 14-2-2011 and stated that the petitioner is ready to pay the advertisement fees as prescribed for using the terrace of the private buildings for piacing advertisement. The respondent No.3 instead of accepting the advertisement fees from the petitioner is V taking a'ction against the petitioner for removing the hoardings. The impugned action of the respondents is‘ illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with Iaw. Hence, this petition. On the other hand, Shri Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 &V3, submits that the fees was deposited by the petitioner for the period 2009-10. The Iease period has come to an end on 31-3—2011, which can be seen from Annexure — P/4 dated 1541—2010. Thereafter, fresh tender process has been initiated and the place has been allotted to the successfui bidders Therefore, the respondent Corporation has not committed any illegality or irregularity. lmmediately after completion of the lease . period, the petitioner is required to remove the hoardings, but the same has not been done by it. Hence, the notice dated 15-1 1-2010 has been issued. The State Government, in exercise of its power under section 432— A of the Chhattisgarh Municipai Corporation Act, 1956 (for shon‘ ‘the Act, 1956’) framed bye-laws, nameiy, The Advertisement (Registration & Regulation) Bye-Laws, 2010 (for short ‘the Bye- Laws, 2010) to regulate advertising profession/services as provided under sub section 23 of section 427 of the Act, 1956. Clause 2 of the Bye-Laws, 2010 which was notified on 11.02.2010 (Annexure P/3) defines the term ‘advertisement‘. On bare perusal of the definition, it is clear that advertisement means establishing hoardings on private or public place in metal, glass, flex or any other material for social, commercial or other purpose. The hoardings placed on the private buildings comes within the definition of advertisement. Hanging, pasting, placing on roof of the .@ houses, walls, pole or electricity pole or any other place in the ground or erecting structure for advertisement on ground also come within the definition of the advertisement. Thus, the municipal corporation is fully justified to regulate the establishing of hoardings at any place including roof of a private building. The identical issue came up into consideration before the Supreme Court, arising from Chennai City Municipal Act, in M/s, Nowa Ads v. Secretary, Deptt. Of Municipa Administration & Water Supply & Another, wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: “23. Hoardings erected on private places also require to be licensed and regulated as they generally abut on and are visible on public roads when put up on private buiidings; they may be dangerous to the building and to the public; they may be hazardous and dangerous to the smooth flow of traffic by distracting traffic, and their content may be obscene or objectionable. it is, therefore, not correct that hoardings on private places do not require to be regulated by licensing provisions." From the notice dated 1541-2010 (Annexure - P/4) it is evident that the permission granted to the petitioner for putting hoardings on the buildings has come to an end on 31-3—2010 and thereafter, fresh tender process has been initiated and the places have been allotted to the successful bidders. The respondent authorities have not committed any illegality or irregularity. ln view of foregoing, the writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri