Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 1317
2008(6) Supreme 371
Supreme Court of india
Altamas Kabir and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
Supri Advertising & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Dr. Anahita Pandole & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5423 of 2008
(@ Special Leave Petition(C) No.12971 of 2008)
Decided on : 02-09-08
For the Appellant :Aspi Chinoy, Sr. Adv., P.H. Parekh, Ms. Diksha Rai (for M/s. Parekh & Co.), Gopal Jain, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Prachi Goel and Mrs. Karanjawala, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Pallav Shisodia, Ms. S.J. Billimoria, D.N. Mishra, Arvind Kumar, Gaurav Goel, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala and E.C. Agrawala, Advocates.
For the State :Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay V. Kharde and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
Important Point
Where in a Writ Petition for relief mainly against Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and its authorities in granting licences for mobile hoarding, High Court, in its anxiety to ensure the free movement of traffic and the safety of both motorists and pedestrians and to avert any untoward incident, proceeded to question decision taken by the competent authorities without having proper material before it to do so, said order of high Court being unsustainable was held liable to be set aside.
Headnote:Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Sections 308, 328 and 328A – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 116 – Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act 1975 – Writ Petition filed by respondent for relief mainly against Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and its authorities in granting licences for mobile hoardings, purportedly in violation of provisions of Sections 308, 328 and 328A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Writ petition appeared to have been filed on account of writ petitioner’s concern regarding destruction of flora and fauna and environment of Mumbai, the damage to heritage buildings in the city and also prejudice purportedly caused to safety of pedestrians and motorists in Mumbai – High Court dismissed Notice of Motion No.155 of 2008 giving a blanket direction that no Mobile Hoarding Vehicle should be parked in the main roads and carriageways – Appeals thereagainst –Held though issue in consideration had been given a good deal of thought by High Court, the authority to decide such a question were authorities under Motor Vehicles Act and not Court – Moreover authorities who were entitled in law to grant licence for displaying such advertisements, such as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the traffic police, had assented to the grant of such licences upon holding that they did not constitute a traffic hazard nor did they disrupt the smooth flow of traffic on the roads on which they are permitted to be parked-Failure on part of respondent.1 to provide any data on frequency of obstruction of smooth flow of traffic along the roads on which Mobile Hoarding Vans had been allowed to be parked- All that had been pointed out by respondent.1 was that height and width of displayed hoardings tend to distract motorists and obstruct vehicular traffic of a certain height – On the contrary, affidavits filed on behalf of Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Mumbai Traffic Police clearly indicated that they had no objection to grant of licences to Mobile Hoarding Vans and that those already granted had been so granted after a proper study had been made of the traffic conditions and the flow of traffic at the spots where the Mobile Hoarding Vans were ultimately permitted to be parked for displaying their hoardings – Except for respondent.1 no other citizen of city of Mumbai had joined the litigation to support the stand taken by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner – Since the authorities which had been empowered to grant such licences and to specify spots for parking, had exercised their authority, held not safe for Court to question decision taken by the said authorities on the basis of allegations made by an individual, without having anything more to rely upon, especially, in the face of the affidavits affirmed both on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the Mumbai Traffic Police – High Court, in its anxiety to ensure the free movement of traffic and the safety of both motorists and pedestrians and to avert any untoward incident, proceeded to question the decision taken by the competent authorities without having proper material before it to do so – Appeal Allowed setting aside judgment of High Court impugned in appeal. (Paras 32 to 40)
Facts of the Case :
1.Writ Petition was filed by respondent herein in the instant case for relief mainly against Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and its authorities in granting licences for mobile hoardings, purportedly in violation of provisions of Sections 308, 328 and 328A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Writ petition appeared to have been filed on account of writ petitioner’s concern regarding destruction of flora and fauna and environment of Mumbai, the damage to heritage buildings in the city and also prejudice purportedly caused to safety of pedestrians and motorists in Mumbai. High Court dismissed Notice of Motion No.155 of 2008 giving a blanket direction that no Mobile Hoarding Vehicle should be parked in the main roads and carriageways.
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Though issue in consideration had been given a good deal of thought by High Court, the authority to decide such a question were authorities under Motor Vehicles Act and not Court. Since the authorities which had been empowered to grant such licences and to specify spots for parking, had exercised their authority, held not safe for Court to question decision taken by the said authorities on the basis of allegations made by an individual, without having anything more to rely upon, especially, in the face of the affidavits affirmed both on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the Mumbai Traffic Police. High Court, in its anxiety to ensure the free movement of traffic and the safety of both motorists and pedestrians and to avert any untoward incident, proceeded to question the decision taken by the competent authorities without having proper material before it to do so .Appeal Allowed setting aside judgment of High Court impugned in appeal.
Result : Appeal Allowed.
Judgment
Altamas Kabir, J. —
1.Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions. Having regard to the common issues involved in the two appeals and the connected applications, they were taken up for hearing together.
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 petitioner’s 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 328A 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 enactment
