The main legal point established is that the petitioner's entitlement to display advertisements was governed by the Concession Agreement, and the MCD could not levy additional charges beyond the agreement.

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner impugns a notice dated 25.05.2011 (hereafter ‘impugned notice’) calling upon the petitioner to remove four advertisements displayed on two Waste Storage Depots – Dhalaos (structures constructed for collection of waste) situated opposite Okhla, New Delhi and near Sant Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner was also called upon to pay damage charges of Rs.2,07,000/- for the month of May 2011 with respect to the aforesaid advertisements. The petitioner also impugns a letter dated 11.11.2010 (hereafter ‘impugned letter’) calling upon the petitioner to deposit monthly licence fees at the rates indicated therein in respect of advertisements displayed by the petitioner at various Dhalaos.

2. The petitioner contended that neither the damage charges as indicated in the impugned notice nor the licence fee as demanded by the impugned letter are payable as such demand is without authority of law.

3. According to the petitioner, the advertisements were permitted by virtue of a Concession Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 31.01.2005 (hereafter the ‘Concession Agreement’). The petitioner contended that by virtue of the Concession Agreement, the petitioner is entitled to undertake any form of commercial advertisements or display advertisements on the sites of Waste Storage Depots (also referred to as ‘Dhalaos’). The respondent disputed the same and contended that the Concession Agreement only contained a general permission to display advertisements. However, display of advertisements was subject to all applicable laws which would also include the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter the ‘DMC Act’) as well as the outdoor advertisement policy. Thus, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to seek a special permission in respect of each site from the Commissioner, MCD in terms of Section 143 of the DMC Act and no advertisement could be displayed contrary to the outdoor advertisement policy.

4. It was next contended that by virtue of Clause 4.12 of Schedule B of the Concession Agreement, the petitioner was required to take prior permission of the MCD with respect to the size, design, colour, contents etc. Since the petitioner had not taken any such permission, for display of advertisements, the petitioner was in breach of the Concession Agreement. It was further contended that the petitioner had displayed advertisements even on Dhalaos which were not operational and the same was contrary to the Concession Agreement. It was lastly contended that the advertisements displayed were also not in conformity with the Concession Agreement inasmuch as the hoardings were much larger than the walls of Dhalaos and further they were also placed higher than the walls of Dhalaos.

5. The controversies that need to be addressed are: (a) whether the petitioner is entitled to display advertisements at the sites in question? (b) Whether any further permission is required as per Section 143 of the DMC Act? and (c) Whether any charges are payable for the use of Dhalaos for displaying advertisements by the petitioner?

6. The issue whether MCD could levy any licence fee/damage charges for display of advertisements is covered by the decision of this Court in Sports and Leisure Apparel Ltd. v. MCD and Anr.: W.P.(C) 4436/2010, decided on 18.11.2014. Undisputedly, the petitioner is entitled to display commercial advertisements on the sides of Waste Storage Depots. This is expressly recorded under Clause 5.21 of the Concession Agreement which reads as under:-

“5.21 Advertisement

The Concessionaire shall be entitled to undertake or permit any form of commercial advertising or display on the sides of the Waste Storage Depots and in consideration thereof, receive amounts from Persons interested in advertising as aforesaid.”

7. The contention that the petitioner would still be obliged to pay additional charges for the same as per MCD policy is clearly not sustainable. The MCD has grante