Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Skycom - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2009 of 2021
Decided On : 16-02-2021
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in municipal applications while ensuring timely resolution by authorities.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Tax for Advertisement (other than advertisement published in newspapers) Bye Laws 1996 - Rule 13(4) - Petition for mandamus related to application for displaying advertisements via building wraps - Application fee of Rs. 25/- paid but claimed to be in non-compliance with law by the respondent - Court directed the respondent to decide the application within three days, emphasizing that this decision is without prejudice to the rights of both parties. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Legal Principle - The court underscores the procedural compliance required for applications and the respondent's obligation to act on applications duly submitted, enhancing the need for clarity in municipal regulations. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought permission to display advertisements via building wraps but faced obstacles due to claims of non-compliance with application requirements and the declaration of the received fee.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondent to decide on the application within three days, noting the respondent's acknowledgment of the application being improperly filed, but still ordered a resolution.
Issues: The primary issues were the legitimacy of the application process and the clarity of fee payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that while compliance with the prescribed regulations is paramount, the respondent must still address the application's merits promptly, highlighting the municipal body's duty in processing applications.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case procedural aspects and order communications. (Para 1 , 2 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner seeks renewal of advertisement permission. (Para 3) |
| 3. debate over application form validity and fees. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court directs decision on application within three days. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
CM APPLN. 5881/2021 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 2009/2021 & CM APPLN. 5880/2021 (stay)
2. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
3. Petitioner seeks a mandamus, thereby respondents to grant/renew permission to the petitioner to display advertisements by way of building wraps on various malls in terms of his application dated 03.01.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application is not being received as the application has been filed under Rule 13 (4) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Tax for Advertisement (other than advertisement published in newspapers) Bye Laws 1996. He submits that the requisite advertisement fee of Rs. 25/- has been paid along with the application.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent on advance notice submits that the said application could not be considered as the same is not in the prescribed form and does not comply with the requirements of law. He submits that Rs. 25/- is the application fee and not the advertisement fee. He, however, submits that Respondents shall, without prejudice, decide the application within three days and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.
6. Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to decide the application of the petitioner within three days and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.
7. It is clarified that this would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
8. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
