Back
High Court Of Delhi
P.C.ADVERTISING - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Interim Application 8460 of 1996
Decided On : 04/01/1998
ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS - ERECTION AND DISPLAY - REQUIREMENTS - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - SECTIONS 143, 144, 146 - OLD ADVERTISEMENT BYE-LAWS, 1959 - BYE-LAWS 5, 6, 8 - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - MAINTAINABILITY - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - WRITTEN PERMISSION OF COMMISSIONER - LICENSED ADVERTISER - NOTICE TO COMMISSIONER - CONTENTS OF ADVERTISEMENT - REJECTION OF PLAINT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a sole proprietorship concern, filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant corporation from removing or interfering with its advertisement hoardings at various sites in Delhi. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired the rights to erect and display the hoardings from the respective property owners and had sent a cheque for the estimated advertisement tax to the defendant. However, the defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not have the mandatory permission of the Commissioner under Section 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and had not complied with the relevant bye-laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable for the following reasons: (i) The plaintiff had not obtained the written permission of the Commissioner as required under Section 143 of the Act and Bye-Law 6 of the Old Advertisement Bye-Laws, 1959. (ii) The plaintiff was not a licensed advertiser as required under Bye-Law 8 of the Old Bye-Laws. (iii) The plaintiff had not sent the requisite notice to the Commissioner as required under Bye-Law 6, including the size and contents of the advertisements. (iv) The plaintiff had not sought permission from the Delhi Urban Areas Commission as required under Section 11 of the Delhi Urban Areas Commission Act, 1973. (v) The suit had become infructuous as it was confined to the year 1996 and the plaintiff had already obtained the relief sought for that year under the ad interim order.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of written permission from the Commissioner under Section 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957? 2. Whether the plaintiff was required to be a licensed advertiser under Bye-Law 8 of the Old Advertisement Bye-Laws, 1959? 3. Whether the plaintiff had complied with the notice requirements under Bye-Law 6 of the Old Bye-Laws? 4. Whether the plaintiff was required to seek permission from the Delhi Urban Areas Commission under Section 11 of the Delhi Urban Areas Commission Act, 1973? 5. Whether the suit had become infructuous?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 requires written permission of the Commissioner for the erection and display of advertisement hoardings. 2. Bye-Law 8 of the Old Advertisement Bye-Laws, 1959 requires persons undertaking the display of advertisements on behalf of others to enroll themselves as licensed advertisers. 3. Bye-Law 6 of the Old Bye-Laws requires a person desiring to erect or display an advertisement to send a notice to the Commissioner with all the particulars and a copy of the matter to be advertised. 4. Section 11 of the Delhi Urban Areas Commission Act, 1973 requires proposals for hoardings to be placed before the Delhi Urban Areas Commission. 5. A suit for injunction becomes infructuous if the relief sought has already been obtained or the subject matter of the suit has ceased to exist.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction and dismissed the application for interim relief. It also imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on the plaintiff.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed the instant suit for permanent injunction and accompanying Application No. 1736/96 for interim relief under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Criminal Procedure Code The defendant has filed an Application No. 8460/96 under Order 39, Rule 4. The plaintiff has also filed I. A. 10109/97 for improving its case with out specifying the amendments excepting that the plaintiff has got his registration renewed as registered advertiser and paid advertisement tax for the year 1997-98. All these applications being inter-connected are required to be taken together.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts in brief are as under ; The plaintiff M/s. P. C. Advertising is sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Shyam Malik. In the course of his business the plaintiff has acquired number of sites from various sources, some of which form subject matter of the present suit as detailed in Schedule a . It indicates following properties:
S. No. Location/site 1. Three single faced hoardings of the size 14 x 20 each at the Cremation Ground, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi. 2. One single-faced hoarding of the size 24 x 16 on the roof top of the property known as U-like Studio (opposite Moti Cinema, Chandni Chowk, Delhi ). 3. One single-faced hoarding of the size 30 x 30 at property/ shop No. 3, Vasant Enclave Market, New Delhi. 4. Four single faced hoardings of the size 40 x 20 each on the property at satimandir, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. 5. One single faced hoarding of the size 50 x 30 at Pratap Market, Jangpura, Bhogal.
( 3 ) THE said premises where the hoardings are put up belong to different private individuals who have entered into agreements with the plaintiff to display advertisement boards/hoardings thereon for different periods. The plaintiff under the cover of its communication dated December 28, 1995 by registered acknowledgement due post, informed the defendant of its intention to erect and display the advertisement hoardings and had also sent a cheque towards the one year estimated advertisement tax, chargeable or leviable for the display of the intended hoardings. Since the defendant did not reply the plaintiff has acquired the rights to erect for itself or its clients, use and benefit, the hoarding structures etc. in the premises owned by the individuals as detailed in Schedule a and to display the advertisement hoardings thereon. Since the defendant had not raised any objection as to the quantum of tax payable or otherwise, the plaintiff had reasons to believe that there was no objection from the defendant with respect to the erection of the hoardings at the site. The defendant-corporation thus had made clear and unequivocal promise to the plaintiff to create a legal relationship and it has in fact been so acted upon by the plaintiff who has spent a huge amount of money to erect the hoardings, in the expectation of being allowed to exhibit the said hoardings. As such, even the equity would, not allow the expectation so created, inter alia by the conduct of the defendant Corporation to be defeated. On 18th January, 1996,20th January, 1996 and on 5th February 1996 the employees and officials of the defendant visited the hoarding sites and threatened and attempted to demolish the hoardings, to remove the hoarding boards and cut the structures thereof. But the plaintiff succeeded in persuading these officials to leave the hoardings intact with the help of property owners and occupiers of the respective premises and properties. After first two visits the plaintiff visited the office and was assured by the concerned officials that they will look into the matter and an intimation would be sent in due course.
( 4 ) FEELING dissatisfied the present suit was filed on 19th February, 1996 claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendant Corporation from removing, defacing, damaging and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the display of the plaintiff s hoardings at the sites as de
AI
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
