Quashed

Clear Channel Mumbai Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC6 May 2015WP/1782/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed impugned orders passed without hearing the petitioner regarding advertisement hoardings, directing the Deputy Municipal Commissioner to provide a hearing opportunity before passing fresh orders, keeping merit contentions open.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders exhibited at A-1 to A-3 are quashed and set aside; opportunity of being heard to be given to petitioners for fresh orders.

Clear Channel Mumbai Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. Vs Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

ASN

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

Writ Petition No.1782 of 2013

¶5

Clear Channel Mumbai Pvt. Ltd. and anr. vs.

¶6

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and anr.

¶7

..Petitioners.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr.Ranbir Singh u/by M/s. Prakash & Co. for the Petitioners. Mrs. Shobha Ajitkumar for the Respondent BMC.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND C.V. BHADANG, JJ. DATE : 6^th May , 2015

¶11

PC:

¶12

We have perused the affidavit in reply of Shri. D.R. Nalawade, Senior Inspector of the concerned Ward of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. In Clause J of Paragraph 4 of the affidavit it is stated that by an order dated 16 August 2013, the Additional Municipal Commissioner (City) directed the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone II to recall the orders passed without hearing the advertiser and directed the Deputy Municipal Commissioner Zone II to give hearing . Clause J of the said affidavit reads thus:

¶13

“J) I say that subsequently order dated 16.08.2013 have been issued by the A.M.C. City thereby directing the D.M.C. Zone II to recall the orders which were passed without hearing the

¶14

ASN

¶15

2/3

¶16

advertiser and directing the D.M.C. Zone II to giver hearing where ever hearing have not been given before the passing of the order. In the petitioners' case, order was passed but no hearing was given by the D.M.C. Zone II. Before these respondents could act upon the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filings the present petition. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the order dated 16.8.2013 as and when produced”.

¶17

Clause-J suggests that a direction was issued by the Additional Municipal Corporation to withdraw the impugned orders at Exhibits A-1 to A-3. In fact, the contention raised by the Municipal Corporation in the same affidavit is that before that action could be taken, the present petition has been filed.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation states that if this Court passes a direction to that effect, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) shall hear the petitioners and pass fresh orders.

¶19

In view of the stand taken in the affidavit in reply, prayer clause (a) is worked out. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not pressing prayer clause (b).

¶20

ASN

¶21

3/3

¶22

Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order.

¶23

a) The impugned orders at Exhibit-A-1 to A-3 are hereby quashed and set aside;

¶24

b) It will be open to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and to pass fresh orders in connection with advertisement hoardings/gantries subject matter of this petition;

¶25

c) All contentions on merits are kept open; d) Petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶26

(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Clear Channel Mumbai Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Clear Channel Mumbai Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Ritesh Kumar Popatlal Chheda Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Yog Advertising and Marketing Services and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Kirti Velji Shah and 24 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vijay Shantram Chile and Othrs

Narayan Sadashiv Shitole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.