( 1. ) THE petitioner is a resident of Bhopal and has filed this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation. He has stated in the writ petition that the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, respondent No. 1, has adopted a resolution to install 50 gantries and 200-road signages at different locations in the city of Bhopal. He has further stated that these gantries and road signages are to be installed by private agencies, which will be allowed to place advertisements on such gantries. The petitioner apprehends that such advertisements placed on the gantries will divert the concentration of the vehicle drivers while driving and consequently will cause road accidents. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for a direction to the respondents not to erect such gantries either directly or through any private advertising agencies.

( 2. ) ON 2-5-2006, the Court while issuing notice in the writ petition passed an interim order that in the meanwhile, the respondents shall ensure that no reception gate (gantry) for the purpose of advertisement will be erected on the main roads. Thereafter, M/s Shreenathjee Infrastructure Investments filed I. A. No. 3749/2006 to intervene in the writ petition and also filed LA. No. 3750/2006 for vacating the interim order. On 18-5-2006, the Court passed orders allowing the application for intervention of the intervener and observed that until the replies are filed by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, and the State government, the interim order dated 2-5-2006 should not be vacated. In the order passed on 18-5-2006, it was also clarified that gantries may be erected by the intervener and signages may be placed on the gantries, but no advertisement will be put up on the gantries for commercial purposes.

( 3. ) AFTER return was filed by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, respondent no. 1, the Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and passed an order on 13-7-2006 directing the Chief Secretary, Government of M. P. , to constitute an expert Committee with the Principal Secretary of Transport Department of the government of M. P. as the Chairman to go through the writ petition and the replies filed by the respondent No. 1 and the intervener and submit a report to this Court after deliberations whether the installation of proposed gantries in bhopal city would increase the chances of road accidents. ( 4. ) PURSUANT to the order dated 13-7-2006, of the Court, the Chief Secretary, government of M. P. , constituted an Expert Committee and the Expert committee submitted a report suggesting that gantries/road signages if erected on the roads in densely populated areas would cause hindrance to traffic and that advertisements displayed on such gantries are likely to disturb the concentration of the drivers of motor vehicles and increase the possibility of road accidents. On 3-1-2007, the Court directed the respondent No. 1 to remove all advertisements from the gantries/road signages in the light of the report of the Expert committee.

( 5. ) WHEN the writ petition was taken up for final hearing, Mr. Girish shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as reported by the expert Committee, advertisements on the gantries across the road are likely to disturb the concentration of the drivers of motor vehicles and increase the possibility of road accidents and, therefore, the Court should direct the respondents not to allow advertisements on the gantries. He cited the order in M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India and others, (1998)1 SCC 363, in which the Supreme court has observed that hazardous hoarding visible to the traffic on the road is a disturbance to safe traffic movement and has refused to modify its earlier order dated 20-11-1997 directing the authorities to remove all hoardings which are on roadsides and which are hazardous and a disturbance to safe traffic movement.

( 6. ) SHRI A. M. Mathur, learned counsel for the intervener, submitted that the expert Committee has ignored the findings of the C