Back
1996 Supreme(Del) 391
High Court Of Delhi
DELHI OUTDOOR ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 05/01/1996
A government authority cannot take arbitrary action that affects the livelihood and business of individuals without providing an opportunity to be heard, as it violates the principles of natural justice and the rule of law.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - SECTIONS 2, 11, 12, 14 - RESTORATION OF STATUS QUO ANTE - COURT DIRECTED MCD TO PROCEED ACCORDING TO LAW BEFORE TAKING ANY DECISION RESULTING IN REFUSAL TO RENEW LICENCES - MCD ISSUED ORDER DIRECTING REMOVAL OF ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS WITHOUT ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICES - HELD, MCD'S ACTION WAS ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF COURT'S ORDER - STATUS QUO ANTE RESTORED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, holders of licenses to display advertisement hoardings on Municipal land, challenged amendments to existing bye-laws regulating the trade of advertisement hoardings. During the pendency of the writ petition, the court passed an interim order directing the MCD to proceed according to law before taking any decision resulting in refusal to renew the licenses. Despite this order, the MCD issued an order directing the removal of advertisement hoardings without issuing show cause notices to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the MCD's action was arbitrary and in violation of the court's order. It observed that the MCD was bound to give the petitioners an opportunity of making representations before issuing the impugned order, as per the principles of natural justice and the court's earlier order. The court further held that the MCD's failure to issue show cause notices to the petitioners resulted in civil consequences, as it affected their livelihood and business.
Issues: Whether the MCD's action of removing advertisement hoardings without issuing show cause notices to the petitioners was arbitrary and in violation of the court's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of natural justice, the court's earlier order, and the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Restaurant and Another v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1982) 3 Supreme Court Cases 338, which held that refusal to renew a license without providing an opportunity to be heard is violative of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the contempt petition and restored the status quo ante as on 27.03.1996, declaring that the impugned order dated 04.04.1996 had no effect whatsoever qua the petitioners. The court directed the MCD to proceed according to law before taking any decision resulting in refusal to renew the petitioners' licenses.
( 1 ) BY this application the petitioners seek restoration of status quo ante as on 27. 3. 1996 by directing the respondent-MCD to permit display of advertisement hoardings on the Municipal land. This application has been opposed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioners have no right to display advertisement hoardings on the Municipal land without obtaining licences under the DMC Act.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this application are that the petitioners have filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 1288/96 in this Court challenging certain amendments proposed to be incorporated in the existing bye-laws to regulate the trade of advertisement hoardings. Alongwith the writ petition the petitioners also filed an application (CM 2445/96) for interim relief. After hearing the parties, following order was passed by this Court on 27. 3. 1996:
"cw 1288/96 Notice to the respondent to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Learned Counsel for the respondent accepts notice and seeks time to file reply. Let that be done within four weeks with an advance copy to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within one week thereafter. Adjourned to 31. 7. 96. CM 2445/96 Notice. Learned Counsel for the respondent accepts notice and seeks time to file reply. Let that be done within four weeks with an advnace copy to the Counsel for the petitioner. The bye-laws proposing amendment in the existing bye-laws to regulate the trade of advertisments have not yet attained finality. In order to carry on the business in question, a licence is required under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. In the instantcase,licences granted to various advertising agencies are expiring on 31st March, 1996. In view of the decision rendered in Raj Restaurant and Another v. M. C. D. (1982) 3 SCC 338, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent/corporation to proceed according to law before taking any decision resulting in refusal to renew the licences. The interim order made by this Court shall remain in operation till the Corporation takes its fresh decision. Liberty is granted to either party to seek modification/vacation of the interim order on completion of the pleadings. Adjourned to 31. 7. 1996. "
( 3 ) THEREAFTER, on 4. 4. 1996 the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone, Delhi (Respondent No. 3) issued the following order (Annexure P-III) directing removal of advertisement hoardings from the Municipal land. No. PA/aec/con. Zone/96/ 21 Dated the 4th April, 96.
( 4 ) "a meeting was held in the office chamber of Commissioner, MCD today which was attended by all ADCs/zacs including the undersigned. Following directions were issued to all ADCs/zacs for immediate compliance :
1. All hoardings in Central Zone whether on private properties or on Municipal land be removed forthwith. 2. All hoarding stands unauthorised w. e. f. 1. 4. 96 as their display contracts have not been renewed. Accordingly, all hoardings need to be removed. 3. Priority should be given to the inter-sections of main road, sites of main roads particularly the roads on which heavy vehicular traffic passes through. 4. Private labourers, gas cutters be hired for removing those hoardings. 5. While removing the hoardings vedio film be prepared alongwith the date. 6. Continuous action be taken w. e. f. today itself and there shall be no let up during the ensuing holidays. Maximum impact should be generated within the next 3 days. 7. All these hoardings which cannot be removed due to some practical problem such as their being erected on private properties or due to paucity of time shall be defaced by black paint. It is needless to emphasis that prompt action is needed to remove all hoardings. Accordingly it is directed that all hoardings alongwith their structure be removed using hired gas cutters. The labour of Building Deptt. alongwith equipments and truck shall also be engaged exclusively for removal of these hoardings during t
