Back
Karnataka High Court
Infant Advertising Pvt.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Bangalore City Corporation - Respondent
Decided On : 11-13-02
W.P. : 9570 of 2001
Articles 226 &227 -Articles 226 & 227 -Renewal of licence not a matter of course -authorities are within their limits to refuse and to impose fresh conditions.
[A. V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.] - The applications for renewal having been refused by the respondents the schedule hoardings as of now are without a valid permission or licence and, therefore, they can only be characterized as unauthorized hoardings. Under the Advertisement bye-laws payment of tax at the time of applying for fresh licence or for renewal having been made mandatory, the mere fact that the petitioner presented the application along with the necessary tax would not entitle the petitioner to an automatic renewal of the licence. Payment of tax on hoardings is only a precondition that has to be satisfied at the time of making the application. The sanctioning or rejection of application would depend on several factors. The payment of requisite tax on the hoarding along with the application would only render the application valid but would not entitle the person making the application to an automatic renewal of the licence previously granted. Unless an application is complete in all particulars which are essential for considering it with reference to the Bye-laws governing such consideration, on payment of advance tax which is just one of the requirements to be satisfied by the applicant at the time of making the application, the applicant can not be heard to say that the Corporation was in error in rejecting the application for renewal. The Corporation having found certain defects in the application had called upon the petitioner to cure those defects. The petitioner having failed to do so, the Corporation could not decide on the application one way or the other. Once there is a communication sent by the licensing authority as has been done in this case an applicant for licence cannot claim that he has a right to exhibit the hoarding even in the absence of renewal of the previous licence merely because he had paid the requisite tax. Thus, on facts and in law, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
Case Referred: AIR 1967 SC 1036.
Renewal of licence
KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1976
Section 443 (10) -Licence for advertising hoardings -not renewed -endorsement issued imposing new conditions -petitioner having paid requisite tax does not entitle him to exhibit the hoardings without a valid renewal of the previous licence.
[A. V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.] -It is clear that renewal of a licence is not a matter of course and the Licencing Authority can always refuse an application for renewal and impose new conditions. The applications for renewal having been refused by the respondents herein, the schedule hoardings as of now are without a valid permission or licence and, therefore, they can only be characterized as unauthorized hoardings. Under the Advertisement bye-laws payment of tax at the time of applying for fresh licence or for renewal having been made mandatory, the mere fact that the petitioner presented the application along with the necessary tax would not entitle the petitioner to an automatic renewal of the licence. Payment of tax on hoardings is only a precondition that has to be satisfied at the time of making the application. The sanctioning or rejection of application would depend on several factors. The payment of requisite tax on the hoarding along with the application would only render the application valid but would not entitle the person making the application to an automatic renewal of the licence previously granted. Unless an application is complete in all particulars which are essential for considering it with reference to the Bye-laws governing such consideration, on payment of advance tax which is just one of the requirements to be satisfied by the applicant at the time of making the application, the applicant can not be heard to say that the corporation was in error in rejecting the application for renewal. The corporation having found certain defects in the application had called upon the petitioner to cure those defects. The petitioner having failed to do so, the corporation could not decide on the application one way or the other. Once there is a communication sent by the licensing authority as has been done in this case under Annexure-G, an applicant for licence can not claim that he has a right to exhibit the hoarding even in the absence of renewal of the previous licence merely because he had paid the requisite tax.
Cases Referred: AIR 1967 SC 1036.
( 1 ) IN this petition filed under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the prayer is to quash the impugned endorsement Annexure-G dated 23-2-2001 issued by the respondents directing the petitioners to cure the defects contained in the application for renewal made by the petitioner in respect of hoardings already erected by the petitioners and further informing the petitioners that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioners to cure the defects noted by the respondent within a period of 7 days that the respondents would act in accordance with the directions given by this court in the previous writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The petitioners allege that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondents is untenable and it is a manifestation of the pre-determined intention of the corporation to arbitrarily refuse the request of the petitioners for renewal of the licence.
( 2 ) THE number of hoardings involved in these petitions are 31. These hoardings are already in existence and the application made by the petitioners to the corporation was for renewal of the licence earlier granted or for renewal of the deemed licence. In the present case there is no refusal on the part of the corporation to grant licence but the respondents have merely called for certain details which in the opinion of the respondents are required for proper consideration of the application filed by the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have filed a single application in respect of 31 hoardings. The petitioners apprehending that the corporation might remove the hoardings have come up with these petitions.
( 3 ) I have heard the learned Sr, Counsel mr. Tarakaram for the petitioners and Mr. S. N. Prashanthachandra for respondents.
( 4 ) THE question whether a direction as sought for by the petitioner could be issued would largely depend on the petitioners establishing that they have a right in law to ensure the continued existence of the hoardings erected by them. The erection of hoardings by the registered advertising agencies and their subsequent renewals is governed by S. 443 (10) of the Karnataka Municipal corporations Act ('the Act' for short) and advertisement Bye-laws of the Corporation. Section 443 (10) of the act reads :"443 (10 ). The acceptance by the Corporation of the prepayment of the fee for a licence or permission for registration shall not entitled the person making such prepayment to the licence or permission or to registration, as the case may be, but only to refund of the fee in case of refusal of the licence or permission or of registration, but an applicant for the renewal of a licence or permission or registration, shall until communication of orders on his application be entitled to act as if the licence or permission or registration had been renewed; and save as otherwise specially provided in this act, if orders on an application, for licence or permission or for registration are not communicated to the applicant. within forty-five days after the receipt of the application by the Commissioner, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year for such less period as is mentioned in the application and subject to the provisions of this Act, the rules, bye-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed. " (Emphasis supplied) a careful reading of the highlighted portion of the provision does go to show that the applicant is entitled to act as if the licence or permission has been renewed only until communication of orders to him by the corporation on the renewal application. In the present case the respondents have by the impugned communication dated 23-2-2001 directed the petitioners to make good the deficiencies noted thereunder. That being the accepted position by both parties, in terms of S. 443 (10) the petitioners could lay claim to the privilege of ensuring the existence of the subject hoardings only till 23-2-2001. As an order has
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
