$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 25^th March, 2026 + W.P.(C) 11988/2018 & CM APPL. 46410/2018 CHITRA ADVERTISING SERVICE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Robin George and Mr. Yogesh Bhatt, Advocates.

versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Respondent Through: Ms. Namrata Mukim, Standing Counsel for MCD with Ms. Niharika Singh, Advocates with Mr. Mukesh Kumar, SO Advertisement Department.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the demand notices dated 2^nd May, 2018 and 15^th October, 2018 issued by the respondent/MCD.

2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner is as under:

2.1 The petitioner was allotted two sites by the respondent for advertisement through unipoles on 23^rd February, 2012 for a period of three years at a monthly license fee of Rs.71,111/- per site.

2.2 The petitioner could not install unipoles at the allotted sites since Public Works Department (‘PWD’), Government of NCT of Delhi was of the view that the sites allotted by the respondent were against the Delhi Outdoor Advertising Policy 2008.

2.3 Accordingly, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 4375/2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26^th April, 2013. The operative part of the said order is set out below:

“Learned counsel or the petitioner says that he is agreeable to the sites offered by the respondents for erecting two unipoles. His only concern is that instead of embedding the unipoles in the wall, the petitioner be given permission to erect the same adjacent to the wall. Ms Pushkarna says that shehas noobjectiontothesame.

Needless to say, in case it is found that the petitioner never got an opportunity to erect the unipoles; the period of three years, as indicated in the letter dated 23.02.2012, would commence from the date of the unipoles being erected. The petitioner shall erect the unipoles within a reasonableperiodof time, not exceedingtwoweeks fromtoday.

Thewrit petitionis, accordingly,disposedof.”

2.4 An application was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking modification/clarification of the said order which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1^st July, 2014.

2.5 The petitioner could not erect the unipoles within the two weeks’ period granted by the Court as there were further obstructions by the PWD officials. This resulted in the petitioner filing a contempt case being Cont.

Cas(C) No.643/2013 against the erring officials of PWD.

2.6 Subsequently, upon a verbal assurance given by the PWD officials permitting the petitioner to install the unipoles, the petitioner filed an application on 28^th May, 2013 seeking withdrawal of the contempt proceeding, which was allowed by this Court on 1^st July, 2014 (Annexure P-

6).

2.7 The petitioner informed the respondent/MCD vide communications dated 22^nd August, 2014 (Annexure P-7 Colly.) and 18^th December, 2014 (Annexure P-8 Colly.) about the filing of the contempt petition as well as the fact that the petitioner could not erect the unipoles on account of resistance by the PWD officials.

2.8 The respondent/MCD demanded Monthly License Fee (‘MLF’) for the two sites from May, 2014, i.e. the date the application seeking withdrawal of the contempt proceedings was filed.

2.9 In December, 2017, the respondent/MCD revised the period of demand from May, 2014 to May, 2013 on the ground that the two weeks granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 26^th April, 2013 passed in W.P.(C) 4375/2012 expired in May, 2013.

3. Mr. Sai Deepak, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has taken the Court through the contempt petition filed by the petitioner as well as the orders passed by this Court in the said contempt petition.

4. He has also drawn attention to the file notings of the respondent/MCD obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to submit that respondent themselves acknowledged that the MLF was payable from 30^th Decembe