( 1 ) THE question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondents can impose a ban on the display of hoardings/advertisements, sign-boards and other advertisements within its jursidiction and whether any prior permission is necessary before the said advertisements are put up.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioners are carrying on the business of advertising and/or are displaying/advertising various products of their customers by placing hoardings/advertisements, sign-boards, neon signs etc. at various sites. Some of the sites belong to public undertakings like the railways while hoardings/advertisements are also put at sites owned by private parties.

( 3 ) UNDER the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, bye-laws relating to control and regulation of advertisements were framed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee vide Notification dated 17th September, 1960. According to the respondents bye-law No. 6 thereof required prior permission of the NDMC before any hoarding/advertisement could be put up. The validity of this bye-law was challenged and the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of New Delhi Municipal Committe Vs. Netar Mohan Prakash Trehan in RSA 287/61 held that the said bye-law to be ultra vires vide judgment dated 17th September, 1971.

( 4 ) ON 23rd July, 1993, the petitioners applied and tendered advertisement tax of Rs. 3,000. 00 in respect of three sites taken on lease/rent from railway authority and private owners. The petitioners have not been granted any permission to set up those hoardings/advertisements and that is why the present writ petition has been filed in which it is inter alia prayed that the respondents should be restrained from removing, demolishing etc. the hoardings/advertisements set up. The hoardings/advertisementshave been set up and, therefore, the plea of the petitioners is that the respondents should accept the tax and allow the petitioners to fix the displays, hoardings/advertisements etc.

( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit, a preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that fresh bye-laws have been framed and notified vide Notification dated 15/3/1993 published in the Gazette on 25/3/1993 and the petitioners ought of have obtained prior permission from the NDMC before setting up the hoardings/advertisements. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the original bye-law was valid and the decision of the learned single Judge in Netar Mohan Prakash Trehan s case (supra) requires reconsideration.

( 6 ) WE will first examine the position in law prior to promulgation of the new bye-laws in 1993. As already stated the original bye-laws were notified vide Notification dated 17th September, 1960. Bye-law Nos. 6 and 7 which are relevant for our purposes are as follows:-

"6. No advertisement, as aforesaid shall be erected, exhibited fixed or retained without the written permission of the Secretary, New Delhi Municipal Committee granted in accordance with the bye-laws framed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee from time to time under Section 188 (n) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Provided that no such permission shall be granted by the Secretary for any advertisement the tax in respect of which has not been paid. Provided further that if any advertisement without permission is dismantled, taken down or removed, spoiled, defaced or screened by the Committee as being without permission as aforesaid, or in consequence of a contravention of any of the bye-laws framed by the Committee under Section 188 (n) Supra, the Advertisement, tax notwithstanding the said action of the Committee shall be payable upto the date of advertisement is actually dismantled, taken down or defaced or screen removed or spoiled, as aforesaid. The tax shall not be payable on the following categories of advertisements:- (a) Name-boards dispalyed by the traders on their own premises provided the board is purely a name-boar