Back
2003 Supreme(Bom) 479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Thakker C.K., C.J. Dr. Chandrachud D.Y., J.
Prochy Numazar Mehta others .... Petitioners.
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 2883, 2884, 2885, 2886, 2913, 2966, 3041, 3042, 3043, 3046, 3047, 3076, 3077 3158 of 2002 with W.P. Nos. 96 100 of 2003, decided on 31-3-2003/19-4-2003.
Advocates appeared :
N.A. Mody i/b. S.I. Memon, in W.P. No. 2913/2002, for petitioners.
Ms. Rajni Iyer with S.I. Memon, in W.P. No. 2913/2002, for Bombay Hoarding Owners Association.
N.A. Mody with Sanjay T. Manek, in W.P. No. 2966/2002, for petitioners.
Navin Parekh with Ms. Hetal Patel, in W.P. Nos. 3047/2002 100/2003, for petitioners.
N.G. Thakkar with N.P. Pandit, i/b. Little Company, in W.P. No. 3077/2002, for petitioners.
C.U. Singh with Mrs. P.A. Purandare, in W.P. No. 100/2003, for Bombay Municipal Corporation in all matters.
Ms. Geetanjali Prabhu, A.G.P., in W.P. Nos. 2966/2002 100/2003, for State.
M.D. Naik, A.G.P., in W.P. Nos. 3076/2002 100/2003, for State.
R.J. Mane, A.G.P., in W.P. Nos. 3077/2002 100/2003, for State.
B.B. Bahal i/b., Ms. Kanchan Jagtap, in W.P. No. 100/2003, for intervener.
Headnote:Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 328 and 328-A - Heritage Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1995, Regulation 67 - Skysigns - Regulation of - Advertisements - Regulation and Control of - Public interest petition for removing hoardings erected and displayed unlawfully in Mumbai - Allowed - Challenged - Hoardings in dispute erected prior to enforcement of Heritage Regulations - Hoarding and structure on which they erected become part of buildings to which they are affixed - Contention that Heritage Regulations have no retrospective effect - Held - Permission cannot be granted for period in 2 years - No renewal can be in excess of 2 years - Hoardings in question fall within definition of expression "Skysign" in Section 328 of Act - Application for renewal of permission must abide by discipline and conditions of Regulation 67 of Heritage Regulations - Municipal Corporation failed to follow prescribed provisions. - After the enforcement of the Heritage Regulations of 1995 it would be clearly impermissible on the part of the Municipal Corporation to grant or renew any permission for the erection of any hoarding, sky-sign or associated display structure, on listed heritage buildings or precincts, save and except with the prior written permission of the Municipal Commissioner acting on the advice of the Heritage Conservation Committee. Under Regulation 67(2) the manner in which the Municipal Commissioner shall regard and proceed on the basis of the advice tendered by the Heritage Committee, is already elucidated in the earlier part of the judgment. Similarly, Court are of the view that every application for renewal of a permission must also necessarily abide by the discipline and conditions of the provisions contained in Regulation 67 of the Heritage Regulations, 1995. In the present cases, the Municipal Corporation has admittedly failed to follow any of the prescribed provisions contained in the law.
Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith. We have heard all the learned Counsel at considerable length including the Counsel on behalf of the interveners and the Bombay Hoarding Owners Association.
The petition filed before this Court in the Public Interest.
2.On 16th April, 2002, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed in this Court in the public interest seeking, inter alia the issuance of appropriate writs, orders or directions to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for the purpose of securing the removal of hoardings which continued to be erected and displayed unlawfully in Mumbai. The grievance of the petitioner was that there was a complete failure on the part of the law enforcing agencies, statutorily vested with regulatory powers to discharge their duties in accordance with law. The petitioner highlighted before the Court the serious environmental concern arising out of the rampant cutting of trees with a view to ensure an unhindered and unobstructed view of hoardings displaying advertisements in the city. Guidelines had been framed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on the grant of permission for the display of sky-signs and advertisements under sections 328 and 328-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The contention of the petitioner was that even these guidelines were not being enforced. In moving this Court, the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1132 of 2002), who is a qualified medical professional working as a Lecturer in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the LTMMC and LTMGH Hospital, Sion, stated that in her capacity as a citizen, a resident and out of her "concern about the destruction of flora and fauna and the environment of Mumbai, the beautiful heritage buildings in the City as also the prejudice being caused to the safety of pedestrians and motorists in Mumbai", she was seeking appropriate directions in regard to the enforcement of the law in relation to hoardings and sky-signs.
The Orders passed by this Court.
17th April, 2002.
3.The petition came up before a Division Bench of this Court on 17th April, 2002. While issuing notice, this Court having regard to the provisions of sections 328 and 328-A of the Act, the provisions of the guidelines framed by the Municipal Corporation and the judgments of the Supreme Court in (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)1, reported respectively in 1997(8) S.C.C. 770 and (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)2, 1998(1) S.C.C. 363, restrained the respondent-authorities from granting or renewing any permission for placing of sky-signs boards or hoardings in the city of Mumbai, without the prior permission of the Court. That order came to be reiterated on 24th April, 2002, since the Municipal Corporation had not appeared before the Court and a grievance was made that hoardings had been permitted in defiance of the orders passed by the Court. This Court also directed that no further hoardings shall be erected even on roadside properties and no further cutting or felling of trees would be allowed.
3rd May, 2002.
4.The petition was admitted on 3rd May, 2002 by a Division Bench consisting of one of us C.K. Thakker, C.J. and S. Radhakrishnan, J. This Court then issued the following directions.
"The respondent-authorities shall not permit hoardings, advertisements and boards except strictly in consonance with the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Guidelines issued by the Municipal Corporation, and if any of the hoardings and advertisements are found to be contravening the above provisions and guidelines, the concerned licences shall be revoked and such hoardings and advertisements be removed forthwith."
In order to ensure a strict compliance with the provisions of law and of the guidelines framed by
