Case: Supri Advert.&amp; Entertainment Pvt.Ltd Vs. Anahita Pandole

2. The respondent herein, Dr. Anahita Pandole, filed Writ Petition no.1132 of 2002 before the Bombay High Court for relief mainly against the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and its authorities in granting licences for mobile hoardings, purportedly in violation of the provisions of Sections 308, 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act 1975. The writ petition appears to have been filed on account of the writ petitioners concern regarding the destruction of flora and fauna and the environment of Mumbai, the damage to heritage buildings in the city and also the prejudice purportedly caused to the safety of pedestrians and motorists in Mumbai. By the writ petition, the respondent no.1 sought the intervention of the High Court to put a check on hoardings, which according to the respondent no.1, had proliferated alarmingly in the city of Mumbai.3. In the writ petition, the respondent no.1 herein challenged the permission granted to various advertising agencies for display of hoardings in breach of the guidelines framed by the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai under Sections 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter referred to as "the 1888 Act", and the provisions of the other enactments mentioned hereinabove. In fact, the writ petitioner also challenged the provisions of the guidelines which had been framed on the ground that they were contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid enactments.4. The case made out in the writ petition is that Section 328 of the 1888 Act, inter alia, prohibits any person, without the written permission of the Municipal Commissioner, to erect, fix or retain any sky-sign, which includes hoardings. Section 328 further provides that no permission under the Section is to be granted or renewed, for any period exceeding two years from the date of each such permission or renewal. Sub-section (3) of Section 328 provides that the Municipal Commissioner may by written notice require the removal of any sky-sign which is erected, fixed or retained in contravention of the provisions of Section 328 or after the permission for such erection, fixing or retention thereof shall have expired or become void. In addition, Section 328 A of the Act provides that no person shall, without the written permission of the Municipal Commissioner, erect, exhibit, fix or retain any advertisement upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure. Certain types of advertisements exempted from the aforesaid restriction, are also included in the Section.5. In the writ petition it was alleged that permission to display mobile hoardings had been granted to different applicants which has not only caused environmental problems but had also resulted in serious damage to heritage buildings of the city, besides causing traffic hazards, even on the arterial roads of the city and disrupting the smooth flow of traffic. It may be pointed out at this stage that neither of the appellants herein had been made parties to the writ petition, but on their application they had been allowed to intervene in the proceedings.6. The writ petition, however, focuses more on the alleged violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, and reference to the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been made to buttress such contention.7. The allegations made in the Writ Petition were denied on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. It was contended that the permission granted to the appellant in these appeals was in complete conformity with the provisions of the different enactments referred to in the writ petition and it was significant that apart from the complaint of the writ petitioner no other complaint had been received from any of the inhabitants of Mumbai, either with regard to environmental problems, traffic hazards or obstruction to the smooth flow of traffic on account of grant of such permission.8. On consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the documents produced on their behalf and the Policy Guidelines on Grant of Permission for Display of Advertisements and Similar Devices, 2007, the Bombay High Court dismissed Notices of Motion Nos.155/2008, 156/2008 and 171/2008, with the followingIn view of the relevant statutory provisions, settled principles of law and for the reasons afore recorded, we direct that `the mobile hoarding vehicles shall not be parked on the main roads of Mumbai or even the carriage ways and would not obstruct free flow of traffic in any manner whatsoever at main roads and carriage ways of Mumbai. Resultantly, we see no reason to vacate the interim orders dated 13th March 2008 and 3rd April 2008. On the contrary, the above orders are made absolute.2. We direct the State Government and the Corporation to make appropriate regulations in exercise of their respective statutory powers and in consultation with the appropriate bodies in relation to advertisement hoardings. It need to be examined by these authorities whether such mobile hoarding vehicles can at all be granted such permissions and/or licences in light of this judgment and the law in force.3. We further direct the concerned Police authorities and the competent authorities in the Corporation and the registering authorities to take action against such vehicles, and after giving them proper opportunity, in accordance with law and in light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly in relation to design, manufacturing, construction, equipping and alteration of vehicles and consequential impact thereupon upon registration of such vehicles.4. We also issue further directions to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra to examine all these cases and fix responsibility in all the concerned Department and Public Authorities, if the officers are found to be erring. Further the State should, in consultation with other Authorities, including Municipal Corporation and Police, should frame proper policy in regard to various facets examined by the court in this judgment.5. All concerned authorities shall ensure compliance of this order in spirit and substance.6. Notices of Motion Nos.155 of 2008, 156 of 2008 and 171 of 2008 are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, we do not propose to award any costs.It is against the said decision of the Bombay High Court that the present appeals have been filed.

Court's reasoning:
The High Court, in our view, in its anxiety to ensure the free movement of traffic and the safety of both motorists and pedestrians and to avert any untoward incident, has proceeded to question the decision taken by the competent authorities without having proper material before it to do so. Contrary to the authority vested in the State Government and the local authority under the provisions of Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sections 328 and 328-A of the 1888 Act, the High Court has given directions which, in our view, are beyond the scope of the writ petition.