JUDGMENT :

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. As this is a large batch of petitions, we have attempted to consolidate the bulk of pleadings and submissions, hence, for convenience, we have divided this judgment into parts. Some prolix was unavoidable.

Prologue

1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners along with their association, have mounted a challenge to the levy of license fee by municipal corporations on sky-signs and hoardings in grant and renewal of such licenses. It needs no elaboration that in the contemporary times, the landscape of sky-signs and hoardings has undergone a profound transformation. It is no more painted metal boards, the outdoor advertisement is now characterized by dynamic high resolution electronic screens, allowing an unprecedented campaign flexibility. Multiple advertisements on a single hoarding throughout the day have become the new norm, unlike a single advertisement of the bygone era. This transformation has induced significant changes in the regulatory control and the safety mandates, owing to the increasing scale and complexity of the sky-signs and hoarding structures. Such changes include special norms and conditions on structural stability requiring reports from certified engineers, a meticulous licensing regime, visual and traffic safety norms requiring varying ‘luminance and size ratio’ depending on the location of the sky-signs, the drivers’ safety perspective, environmental and social impact, the burden on the city’s energy consumption, carbon footprints, visual clutter and light pollution, affecting the mental concentration of the public at large. Thus, the control and regulation of sky-signs and hoardings in the modern times is a significant challenge for the municipal bodies who are caught between a balance to be brought about by such high technological advancements, in discharging their civic obligations coupled with the onerous responsibility of safeguarding and preserving public interest, which includes adhering to the safety norms, aesthetics, environmental norms and other sustainable practices, so as to ensure that the sky-signs integrate safely and harmoniously into the urban landscape and not create a public torture and an eyesore. It is with such perspective, the regulation and control of sky-signs and hoardings assumes significant dimensions and responsibility of the municipal authorities.

2. On the aforesaid conspectus, as to what is before the Court in the present proceedings needs to be stated. The challenge in these petitions is to the demand/levy of fees for grant and/or renewal of licenses being issued by the municipal corporations(s) under Section 244 read with Section 386(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short “MMC Act”) [earlier titled as the “Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949] for display of sky-signs and hoardings. The challenge is mounted primarily on the authority, power and jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation to levy license fees inter alia on the ground that the license fee is in fact a tax being levied without authority of law. It is also on the ground that with the introduction of the Goods and Service Tax Laws, there is no authority to levy advertisement tax. Also, there are other grounds of challenge. The Municipal Corporations against whom these petitions are filed are primarily the Pune Municipal Corporation against whom twenty six petitions are filed and one petition each filed against Nashik, Thane and the Kolhapur Municipal Corporations.

3. As this batch of petitions raises similar questions of law and fact, hence, they are being decided by this common judgment.

4. We may also, at the outset, observe that against the respondent-Pune Municipal Corporation, twenty six writ petitions have been filed. Each of these petitions has reply affidavits. The bulk of the proceedings is substantially large. Although at the cost of some verbosity so as to deal with the case of the parties in a consolidated manner including on their p