M. S. A. Siddiqui,j.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the common order dated 17. 9. 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on respondents application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. for grant of interim injunction in civil suits bearing No. 13, 32, 33, 49, 50, 60, 61, 80, 79, 74, 141 and 72 of 1993 filed by the respondents. By the order impugned in these appeals, pending the said suits, the appellants and its servants have been restrained from dismantling, removing or damaging any of the hoardings set up by the respondents during pendency of the suit. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE respondents filed civil suits for permanent injunction and the accompanying application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. The respondents are carrying on the business of advertising and/or are displaying/advertising various products of their customers by placing hoardings/advertisements and sign boards at various sites. Some of sites belonging to private parties have been hired by the respondents for putting up hoardings/advertisements. The respondents applied and tendered to the appellant the advertisement tax alongwith site plan and the text of advertisement in respect of sites taken on lease from private owners. The respondents waited for reasonable time but they did not receive any permission from the appellants to set up their hoardings/advertisements. Thereafter, the respondents set up hoardings/advertisements. The petitioners employees came to the site and threatened to demolish, deface and remove the hoardings/advertisements. Consequently, the respondents filed civil suits for permanent injunction on the ground that the advertisements displayed by them did not violate any of the bye- laws framed by the petitioner and it also does not injuriously affect the amenities of any historic building and was in no way indecent or offensive of good taste and public sentiments.

( 3 ) THE appellant stoutly resisted the applications filed by the respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. However, the learned trial judge on the basis of the materials placed before him and also on the basis of the arguments advanced came to the conclusion that every application which is submitted for permission to set up hoardings/advertisements must be dealt with and if the same is not entertained, the person who applied and tendered advertisement tax and displays the advertisements is to be protected. He therefore allowed the respondents applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondents had not obtained the requisite prior permission from the appellant for erecting the advertisements/hoardings and the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits filed by the respondents and as such the order granting interim injunction passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY the respondents had not obtained the requisite prior permission from the appellant for erecting the advertisements/hoardings. Under Section 481 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, the Corporation has been empowered to frame byelaws to regulate the posting of bills and advertisements. The power to regulate also includes the power to prevent the hazard placing of advertisements and for obtaining of the prior permission of the competent authority for setting up or erecting of posting of the bills and advertisements. Bye-law No. 6 prescribes procedure for obtaining permission of the commissioner for erection of advertisement. It reads as under;-

"6. PROCEDURE for obtaining permission of Commissioner for erection etc. of advertisements - (1) Every person desiring to erect, exhibit, fix, retain or display an advertisement shall send or cause to be sent to the Commissioner, not less than ten c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document