Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner inter alia impugns an order dated 24.06.2010 (hereafter the ‘impugned order’) passed by the Officer on Special Duty of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),imposing “damages” at the rate of Rs.7,36,000/- per month w.e.f. April 2010 for displaying an advertisement in contravention of the MCD’s Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2007 (hereafter the ‘Outdoor Policy’). It was further held the advertisement was unauthorized as no permission was taken from the MCD under Section 143 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter variously referred to as the ‘Act’ or ‘DMC Act’).

2. The petitioner impugns the levy of damages/damage charges (hereafter also variously referred to as ‘impugned charges’ or ‘impugned demand’) as being without authority of law. This is disputed by the MCD by contending that the levy of penalty and regulatory fee for displaying advertisement are contemplated under the Outdoor Policy, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, authorized under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the principal question that is to be addressed is whether impugned charges levied by the MCD are authorized by law.

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts necessary for considering the controversy are adumbrated as under:

3.1 The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling apparels, footwear and accessories etc. under the brand name ‘Lacoste’. The petitioner owns a three storied building at E-1, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi (hereafter ‘said premises’) and operates a retail outlet from the said premises.

3.2 The respondent, MCD, issued an order dated 16.04.2010 to the petitioner alleging that on an inspection conducted on 10.04.2010, it was found that the petitioner had put up a display of a size of 400 sq. ft. on the “Two Wall Wrap” at the premises, without permission of the MCD and without paying any charges. It was further held that “financial loss caused to MCD needs to be realized” and the petitioner was called upon to deposit damage charges of Rs.92,000/- for the month of April 2010. The said charges were computed in the following manner: “400 (size) x Rs.115/- (approved rate for wall wrap in Central Zone) x 2 (penalty) =Rs.92,000/”

3.3 Subsequently, MCD issued another order dated 29.04.2010 stating that the petitioner has unauthorisedly put up a wall wrap advertisement of size of 3,200 sq. ft. on the premises displaying company’s name and its products and therefore, directed the petitioner to deposit “damages charges” of a sum of Rs.7,36,000/- for the month of April 2010 for causing financial loss to MCD. The petitioner, by its letter dated 06.05.2010, informed MCD that the wall wrap was a mere display of its brand name ‘Lacoste’ and its products which were sold in the same building and, thus, the said display could not be said to be an advertisement.

3.4 Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.3751/2010) before this Court, inter alia, seeking quashing of the orders dated 16.04.2010 and 29.04.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by an order dated 28.05.2010, permitting the petitioner to file a representation with the MCD and directing the MCD to decide the same after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The said representation of the petitioner was disposed of by the MCD, by its impugned order dated 24.06.2010. MCD held that the advertisement displayed by the petitioner was commercial in nature as it is exceeded the permitted free self-signage size of 2.5 sq. mtr and therefore, imposed impugned damages of Rs.7,36,000/- per month w.e.f April 2010 on the petitioner.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended:-

4.1 that the impugned charges of Rs.7.3 lacs per month as demanded by the impugned order are without any authority of law as the said levy is not authorized by any provision of the DMC Act or bye-laws made thereunder. And, such levy is also vi