IMPORTANT POINT
The manner and method of construction adopted by High Court on scope of Section 328(3) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 cannot be approved in this case.

Headnote:Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988-Sections 328 and 328A r/w 471-Meaning of Advertisement , Announcement , Sky-sign and Direction -Scope of Section 328(3)-Appellant-Corporation initiating action against respondent on the projection, of the Boards over the pavement in regard to their sign boards of Petroleum Pumps-Single Judge restrained the appellant to do so-D.B. affirmed in appeal-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Rival contentions on the words Advertisement , Sky-sign (Para 5)-Whether approach of the High Court in interpreting Section 328(3) of the Act sustainable? (No) (Paras 8, 9, 10) -Result - Appeal allowed - Whether criminal proceedings be continued by restoration? (No, opportunity be given to respondent) (Para 11)-(Interpretation of statutes-Rule of Ejusdem Generis).
Held : The indication given above by emphasis supplied to some of the words used in the provision in question as well as the words in the nature of an advertisement, announcement or direction would go to show that it is not a must to be that but is enough if its in the nature of that which is specified. The three words required to be construed cannot be said to admit of any one particular meaning alone but capable of being understood by their general or interrelated meaning suitable for the context. Consequently, we are not persuaded to affix our seal of approval to the manner and method of construction adopted by the High Court - both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. In view of the above, we allow this appeal. The judgment under challenge cannot be sustained and while setting aside the same, we order the dismissal of Misc. Writ Petition No. 1380 of 1976 filed by the respondent in the High Court. The consequences of our allowing the appeal and ordering the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent would result in the restoration of the proceedings instituted before the Criminal Court for prosecuting the respondent under Section 471 of the Act or with a liberty to institute or pursue the same further. The fact that the respondent succeeded before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench would at any rate go to show that the respondent had no culpable or guilty mind to violate or evade compliance and that the respondent seems to have entertained a genuine belief that they are not bound by the provisions contained in Section 328/328A of the Act. Therefore, instead of allowing the restoration of the earlier launched criminal proceedings and/or before allowing the appellant-Corporation to pursue further action under Section 471 of the Act, taking into account the fact that the respondent is a public authority, which seemed to have seen vindicating its rights genuinely, we consider it just and proper to direct the appellant-Corporation to issue an appropriate notice intimating the respondent details as to the liability monetarily towards arrears of licence fees and to call upon the respondent not only to remit the same but also to make a formal application for ratification and approval of their installations within 30 days from the date of service of such notice by the appellant-Corporation on the respondent and thereafter pass orders determining the sum payable (the arrears of license fee alone) and intimate the sum so fixed to the respondent. The respondent shall remit the sum so determined within two months from the date of such intimation. On respondent making compliance with such directions of the appellant-Corporation pursuant to the liberty granted by us now, the appellant-Corporation will not pursue the prosecution of the respondent. Per contra, if the respondent commits any default or contravention of such directions, the proceedings already initiated against the respondent would revive and the appellant-Corporation shall be at liberty to take all such action as is permissible in law pursuant to our judgment, and as the circumstances may warrant to enforce the provisions of the Act against the respondent. No costs. (Paras 10 & 11)

JUDGMENT

Raju, J.-The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay who lost before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, is the appellant herein against the judgment dated 30.8.85 in Appeal No.167 of 1980 whereunder the Division Bench, while affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, restrained the appellant-Corporation from taking any action against the respondent under Section 328 or 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in regard to their sign boards of petroleum pumps. In order to appreciate the legal issues raised pertaining to the scope and purport of the statutory provisions noticed supra, it becomes necessary not only to advert to the nature of the activities of the respondent which are the subject-matter in issue but also the conclusions arrived at in the judgment under challenge as well as the reasons therefor.

2. The respondents are said to be successor-in-title of the company known as Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company Limited carrying on business inter alia as a distributor of petroleum products in various parts of the country. We are concerned in this proceeding with the distribution of petroleum products from various retail outlets of the respondents, known as petrol pumps in Bombay. Within the premises of those petrol pumps, it has erected a pole with a metallic board projecting on the pavement, which board displayed the symbol of a Shell, said to be the registered trade mark of the respondent s predecessor. The height of the pole is said to be 18 ft. and the diameter of the metallic board (on which appears the Shell symbol) is said to be 6 ft. Across the symbol of the Shell appear the words Burmah-Shell in letters of 3" height. All the poles and the boards erected at the respondent s petrol pump are said to be identical and most of them are illuminated at night by a small light at the top. Though, prior to 1975 the respondent applied for requisite permission under the Act for the erection of such sign boards at its various petrol pumps, on the basis of subsequent advise said to have been obtained by them that those boards were not an advertisement requiring permission under the provision of the Act, noticed above, the respondent addressed letters dated 30.1.75 and 19.3.75 intimating their stand to that effect to the appellant-Corporation but the authorities of the Corporation by their letter dated 29.9.75 insisted that the permission was necessary for displaying such boards as they also constituted an announcement or direction. Since in spite of the same, the respondent stuck to its stand and did not obtain permission, the appellant-Corporation launched criminal proceedings for committing offence under, Section 471 read with the provisions noticed above. The respondent at this stage filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 1380 of 1976 seeking for appropriate writ directing the Corporation to withdraw or cancel those complaints and to forebear the Corporation from taking any action against the respondent under Section 328 or 328A of the Act in respect of the boards erected by them as referred to above.

3. On a consideration of the submissions of the respective parties, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court by his judgment dated 15.2.80 sustained the claim of the respondent by accepting the stand taken that the boards erected by the respondent do not amount to an advertisement and what the respondent was doing by such erection of boards was merely to give an indication or guidance to the motorists and the general public regarding the situation or location of their petrol pumps which are open all the 24 hours around. The learned Judge was of the view that since the motorist knew whose products he wanted to buy and all that is informed by such installation is of the location of the petrol pump, the signboards in question cannot be said to be an advertisement or in the nature of an advertisement and its

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 426

IMPORTANT POINTThe manner and method of construction adopted by High Court on scope of Section 328(3) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 cannot be approved in this case.

IMPORTANT POINT
The manner and method of construction adopted by High Court on scope of Section 328(3) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 cannot be approved in this case.