1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.127 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2009 M/s.Ace Advertising : Appellant versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. : Respondents. Shri Shoaib I Memon for the Appellant. Smt.K.K.Soraan for the Respondent/BMC CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Appeal from Order challenges the order dated 9th January 2009 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 & Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, (Borivali Division), Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai by which order, the ad-interim relief of temporary injunction was refused to the Appellant/Plaintiff. 2. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed L.C.Suit No.16 of 2009 2 challenging the Notice bearing Reference No.DMC/Spl/OD/9813 dated 24/06/2008 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special), Mumbai and the order bearing Reference No.DMC/SPL/OD/3995 dated 15/12/2008 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) Mumbai. In the said Suit, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion numbered as Exhibit-6 for an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from revoking the Plaintiff's License No.761100591 and further from demolishing and/or pulling down the suit site of the Plaintiff i.e. Hoarding admeasuring 40 ft. x 20 ft. 3. The Plaintiff has been issued the License No.761100591 and has a hoarding site in the compound of Building No.1 of Marga Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Limited, standing on land bearing Plot No.A, Survey No.26-A, Hissa No.5, C.S.T. Nos.324, 325, 343 (part) at village Gundivali, Professor N.S.Phadke Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 069. The Plaintiff was issued a Notice dated 24/6/2008 by the Deputy Municipal Corporation (Special) that there is a breach of Clause 7(a) and Clause 10(c) of the New Policy 3 Guidelines-2008. Clause 7(a) and Clause 10(c) read as follows :- “ 7(a) – Minimum distance between hoardings The Minimum distance between two hoardings on poles of the same side of the road / alignment shall not be less than 20 meters. This distance will be measured from the perimeter of the hoarding. Here same side of alignment shall mean same direction of road. Clause 10(c) – Projection on footpath Hoardings on open ground shall not be permitted to project over footpath” 4. Pursuant to the said Notice dated 24/6/2008, the Plaintiff was heard by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) and by his order dated 15/12/2008, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) revoked the license granted to the Appellant/Plaintiff as also directed it to remove its hoarding. As mentioned above, it is the said Notice and the order which are impugned in the said Suit. 5. The trial Court refused the ad interim relief to the Plaintiff on the ground of the New Policy Guidelines-2008 and as per Clause 7(a) and Clause 10(c). In terms of clause 7(a), the minimum distance 4 between two hoardings should not be less than 20 meters. However in the instant case, the distance between the present hoarding of the Plaintiff and its other hoarding, which is older, is 18.50 meters. In terms of clause 10(c), projection over the footpath is prohibited. The trial Court was of the view that the hoarding of the Appellant/Plaintiff could not be allowed to continue for the reasons mentioned in the order dated 15/12/2008 of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Spl). 6. The New Policy Guidelines-2008 have been framed by the Respondent No.1 to control and regulate the advertisements and sky sings. The said policy guidelines of 2008 have been framed after taking into consideration the provisions of existing guidelines, change in technology, indiscriminate mushrooming of hoardings, international standards and enhancement of aesthetic beauty of city because of conscious and well-defined objective. 7. In Writ Petition No.1132 of 2002, this Court had directed the Respondent-Corporation to ensure that display hoardings infringing guidelines shall not be permitted any further. The Respondent No.1 therefore is implementing the New Policy Guidelines-2008. It is the 5 case of the Appellant/Plaintiff that the New Policy Guidelines of 2008 cannot be applied to the hoardings for which the licenses have been granted prior to 2008. It is the further case of the Appellant/Plaintiff that a Writ Petition has been filed challenging the said guidelines. 8. As mentioned herein above, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Spl), after carrying out a proper inquiry, has passed the order dated 15/12/2008 on the ground that the said policy guidelines in the instant case being clause 7(a) and clause 10(c) have been violated. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff that the said policy guidelines cannot be applied to it in view of the fact that the license has been granted to it in the year 2007 cannot be accepted as the policy guidelines would have to be implemented till they are in force. 9. Having considered the reasons mentioned by the trial Court for refusal of ad-interim relief, in my view, no fault can be found with the said reasons. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 6 10. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.146 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]