Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23328
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ, C M JOSHI, J
SRIDEVI S SRI. MAYIGE GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 57990 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. G R MOHAN
For the Respondents: SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, SRI. S.S.NAGANAND, SRI.B.L. SANJEEV
The enforcement of local regulations under the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act is essential for public safety concerning illegal advertisements.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Petition filed for enforcement of the Act and compliance with earlier orders - Petitioner claimed that illegal hoardings created hazards for public safety, and pointed to similar decisions by the Supreme Court regarding unlawful advertisements. (Paras 2, 3, and 5)
(B) Bye-laws - The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Advertisement) Bye-Laws, 2024, have been framed to tackle illegal advertisements - The respondents agreed to implement these Bye-laws. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, representing a labour welfare federation, highlights issues of unauthorized advertisements detrimental to public safety, asking the court to enforce the existing law related to disfigurement prevention.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed to the implementation of the new Bye-laws, which address the grievances raised by the petitioner, acknowledging the legislative intention to remedy the situation concerning unlawful advertisements.
Issues: The pivotal question was whether the authorities would implement the Bye-laws to ensure public safety regarding advertisements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted the importance of implementing statutory regulations to address public safety and the significance of compliance with the earlier court order regarding disfigured spaces by illegal advertisements.
Result: Petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner seeks enforcement of the karnataka open places act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. bye-laws addressing hoardings align with the act requirements. (Para 4) |
| 3. court finds the grievances resolved by new bye-laws. (Para 5 , 6) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation petition inter lia, praying as under:
(A) Issue Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to implement the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 within the BBMP Limits of Bengaluru by framing relevant Rules and Regulations;
(B) Direct the Respondents to obey the orders as per Annexure 'C' dated 17-07-2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.22810 of 2012 and other connected Writ Petitions in letter and spirit;
(C) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner claims that he is a social activist and also the Secretary of the Karnataka Labour Welfare Federation. The petitioner points out that the Government of Karnataka had enacted the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 , which received the assent of the President of India, on 28.08.1982. The petitioner contends that in terms of Section 10 of the said Act, the State Government is required to make rules for implementation of the provisions of the said Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has highlighted that there are several hoardings on the road side, which cause disturbance to the safe traffic movement and that in terms of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others1 the same were required to be removed. The petitioner submits that despite the orders for removal of illegal hoardings, no precipitative action has been taken to prevent erection and construction of illegal hoardings and their removal. He also points out that recently, a hoarding, which was erected near Mantri Square on Sampige Road, Malleshwara, Bengaluru, had fallen down and injured a person.
4. It is stated that the respondents have now framed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Advertisement) Bye-Laws, 2024, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 318 read with Sections 157 and 319 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 .
Bye-law 15 of the BBMP (Advertisement) Bye-Laws, 2024, is reproduced below:
"15. Removal of advertisements or displays. (1) In case of prohibited on unauthorized advertisements and displays,-
(i) no advertisement or display or its infrastructure which is prohibited or without valid permission or otherwise violates any of the provisions of these bye-laws shall be erected or continued to be displayed;
(ii) if the same comes to the notice of the BBMP, it shall be removed or demolished by the Chief Commissioner or the Special Commissioner (Advertisements) or the Zonal Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, after a written notice of seven days in Form-VII:
Provided that any unauthorized erection or display of advertisement on road or footpath or any land or property owned by the Government or BBMP or any Government owned Public Sector Unit or agency may be removed or demolished immediately without any written notice.
(iii) In case of illegal or unauthorized advertisements or displays or flexes or banners, apart from being removed or demolished, both the persons responsible for erecting the same and the persons on whose private property such illegal or unauthorized advertisements or displays or flexes or banners have been erected, shall be liable for criminal action under the applicable laws-including under the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Defacement) Act 1981, the BBMP Act 2020, Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita, Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
(iv) apart from the removal or demolition, in case of private lands or prop
