1. Removal of hoardings following the expiration of an advertising contract by efflux of time. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 239
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., B N Kirpal, S Saghir Ahmad. JJ.
M. C. D., APPELLANT
VERSUS
DELHI OUTDOOR ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
I.A. No. 1 in C.A. No. 10421 of 1996,
decided on February 10, 1997.
Important Points
When a contract for advertising expires by efflux of time, the right to advertise ceases, and hoardings may be removed without the requirement of a prior show-cause notice.
Subject
Administrative Law - Municipal Law
Headnote
(A) Contract Law - Expiry of contract by efflux of time - Removal of hoardings - Show-cause notice - Once the period of the contract comes to an end by efflux of time, the right to advertise ceases and the hoardings ought to be removed - There is no requirement for the removal to be preceded by a show-cause notice. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding the removal of hoardings following the expiration of a contract. The lower court had held that a show-cause notice must be issued before the removal of such hoardings. The appellant challenged this specific finding.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the observation of the lower court regarding the necessity of a show-cause notice was incorrect because the right to advertise ceases automatically upon the expiration of the contract.
Issues: Whether a show-cause notice is mandatory before the removal of hoardings when the contract period has ended by efflux of time.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a contract expires by efflux of time, the legal right to maintain advertisements ceases; consequently, hoardings can be removed without the need for a preceding show-cause notice.
Result: Appeal disposed of with modification.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding the removal of hoardings following the expiration of a contract. The lower court had held that a show-cause notice must be issued before the removal of such hoardings. The appellant challenged this specific finding.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the observation of the lower court regarding the necessity of a show-cause notice was incorrect because the right to advertise ceases automatically upon the expiration of the contract.
Issues: Whether a show-cause notice is mandatory before the removal of hoardings when the contract period has ended by efflux of time.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a contract expires by efflux of time, the legal right to maintain advertisements ceases; consequently, hoardings can be removed without the need for a preceding show-cause notice.
Result: Appeal disposed of with modification.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a show-cause notice is mandatory prior to the removal of hoardings after the expiration of an advertising contract. (Para 2 )
3. Once an advertising contract expires by efflux of time, the right to advertise ceases, rendering a show-cause notice unnecessary for the removal of hoardings. (Para 2 )
4. No show-cause notice is required for the removal of hoardings when the right to advertise has ceased due to the contract ending by efflux of time. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal disposed of with the modification that a show-cause notice is not mandatory before the removal of hoardings after the contract expires. (Para 2 )
6. Is a show-cause notice mandatory before removing hoardings after an advertising contract expires?
No. Once the contract period ends by efflux of time, the right to advertise ceases, and hoardings may be removed without a preceding show-cause notice. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. The appeal is taken on board.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since the hoardings have been removed, the grievance of the MCD does not survive so far as that aspect is concerned. However, the learned counsel for the MCD contends that the Division Bench of the High Court was wrong holding that before removal of the hoardings a show-cause notice is a must. We think that the learned counsel for the MCD is on a firm ground so far as this contention is concerned because once the period of the contract comes to an end by efflux of time the right to advertise ceases and the hoardings ought to be removed and there is no question of the removal being preceded by a show-cause notice. Therefore, the observation of the Division Bench to this extent does not appear to be correct. The appeal will stand disposed of with this modification in the order. There will be no order as to costs.
