JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Raju Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharth Prasad, learned counsel for the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar (respondent no. 1)

2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner, which is a private registered company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, to put up 950 hoarding at different sites in the State of Bihar including Unipoles, BQS and Wall Wraps etc., on private properties as part of election campaign.

3. The petitioner claims to have been engaged by a political party, namely, Bhartiya Janta Party for putting up such hoardings.

4. The necessity for filing this writ petition arose when the authorities concerned did not give any categorical reply to the representation/letter by the petitioner seeking approval from the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar for putting up the hoardings with the permission of the owners of the properties as mandated under the Defacement of Property Act, 1987.

5. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the attention of this Court that the District Electoral Officer has sought guidelines from the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar for granting permission to the petitioner for putting up hoardings on behalf of a political party.

6. It must be stated here that this case has been listed today on the mentioning of the petitioner having been allowed.

7. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that he had personally visited the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar for seeking permission on behalf of the petitioner for putting up the hoardings but he was made to understand that the stand of the Election Commission is that in view of the Prevention of Defacement Act, 1987 and the amendment to the aforesaid Act in section 3 of the parent Act, no such hoardings would be permitted to be put up by any political party but it would only be allowed for “person or persons” contesting election.

8. To understand the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, it would be first necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1988. Section 3 of the Act referred above reads as hereunder:-

3. Penalty for defacement of property.—(1) Anybody, who defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material, except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property shall be deemed to have committed an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment for term which may extended to six months or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

(2) Where any offence committed under sub-section (1) is for the benefit of some other person or a company or body corporate or an association of persons (whether incorporated or not), then such other person or President, Chairman, Director, Partner, Manager, Secretary, agent or any other officer or person concerned the management thereof, as the case may be, shall, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent be deemed to be guilty of such offence.

(3) The owner or the occupier of a private property, after giving written consent, may permit, any “person or persons” (emphasis provided) contesting an election, to which the Representation of The People Act, 1951 is applicable, either as an independent candidate or on the symbol of a recognized political party, to use his private property for the purpose of election campaign during the period notified by the Election Commission for the completion of the process of that election.

9. A perusal of the provision contained in section 3 of the aforesaid Act, it becomes rather clear that defacing a public property has been rendered an offence with a punishment and that if such offence is committed for the benefit of some other person or a comp