Dismissed

Hiroo Jethanand Thadani v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2016WP/1777/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged orders rejecting his appeal against the revocation of his advertising hoarding permit in favor of another advertiser. The High Court upheld the authorities' decision to prioritize the date of application over the date of fee payment as the former was identical for both parties, dismissing the writ petition under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Hiroo Jethanand Thadani Vs the Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wpl 1944.16.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1944 OF 2016

¶6

Hiroo Jethanand Thadani .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.I. Memon, for the Petitioner. Ms.K.H.Mastakar, for Respondent No.1 – BMC. Mr.Amit Shastri, AGP for Respondent No. 2- State.

¶10

CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR &

¶11

M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 21^st JULY, 2016

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. Not on board. At the request of the petitioner, taken

¶14

up on production board.

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

¶16

learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned AGP for respondent No.2. In this Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority thereby

¶17

1/7

¶18

wpl 1944.16.doc

¶19

rejecting the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24/11/2014 passed by the First Appellate Authority. The dispute is in respect of a hoarding of which the petitioner is holding a permit situate in the compound of National Airport Authority Land, Near Patco Petrol Pump, S.V.Road, Vile Parle, (West), Mumbai. According to the petitioner, they are the oldest advertisers and have erected hoarding which is existing since 1993. According to the petitioner, the hoarding is erected before the hoarding of M/s.Simca Advertising was erected.

¶20

At the site, there are two hoardings one belonging to M/s.Simca Advertising and other belonging to the petitioner and distance between these 2 hoardings is less than 20 meters. As per the policy guidelines of 2007, the distance criteria introduced vide Part II A-7(a) of the guidelines provided inter se distance between the two hoardings as 20 meters.

¶21

The Respondent No.1 – Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 19/11/2012 to the petitioner for various

¶22

2/7

¶23

wpl 1944.16.doc

¶24

violations. One of the violation related to the distance being less than 20 meters between the two hoardings. First Appellate Authority by order dated 24/11/2014 was pleased to revoke the permit of the petitioner and thereby directed the permit M/s.Simca Advertising to be renewed.

¶25

The Second Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 13/07/2016 was pleased to reject the Appeal and directed the removal of the hoarding within 7 days, failing which the same shall be removed by the Assistant Commissioner, 'K'/West Ward.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's hoarding was erected first in point of time than that of M/s.Simca Advertising. According to the petitioner, though the application was preferred by M/s.Simca Advertising prior to the application made by the petitioner, but M/s.Simca Advertising failed to take any step to expedite the decision on application. According to the learned Counsel, both the

¶27

3/7

¶28

wpl 1944.16.doc

¶29

Authorities have committed error in adopting the criteria of giving preference to the date of making of the application. The petitioner, according to the learned Counsel had made the payment of advertisement fees to the MCGM before M/s.Simca Advertising and therefore, according to him, this criteria should have applied.

¶30

Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 – MCGM, on the other hand, supported the orders passed by the First and Second Appellate Authorities. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, the date of sanction, date of fresh NOC issued by the National Air Port Authority, the date of NOC issued by MCGM being the same in respect of the petitioner as well as M/s.Simca Advertising, the criteria adopted by the Appellate Authorities of giving preference to the date of application cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. Merely because the first payment of advertisement fees made by the petitioner to the MCGM is made one day prior to that made by M/s.Simca Advertising does not mean that it is only the criteria of first

¶31

4/7

¶32

wpl 1944.16.doc

¶33

payment of advertisement fees should have been adopted by the respondents.

¶34

Second Appellate Authority while coming to the conclusion that the permit of the petitioner should be revoked has given the following reasons.

¶35

During the hearing M/s.Simca Advertising stated that, their application is oldest one i.e. of 08.02.1987 and as per High Court order the old applociation should be considered as the first one, therefore, their hoarding should be retained and renewed as the oldest advertiser.

¶36

In this case, one of the parties i.e. M/s.Simca Advertising has made the application earlier, whereas the other party M/s.Vin Ads Advertising claims that its case should be considered since it has paid the advertisement fees earlier.

¶37

Sr.Inspector (Licence), K/West ward stated that M/s.Vin Ads Advertising has not modified the hoarding in accordance with the Policy Guidelines and submitted thedetails as below :

¶38

Sr. No	Name of Advertisers	Date of Application	Date of Sanction by D.M.C.	Date of fresh NOC issued by National Airport Authority	Date of NOC issued by MCGM	Date of First Payment of advertisement fees to MCGM
1	M/s.Vin Ads Advertising In the compound of National Airport Authority Land, Near Patco Petrol Pump, S.V.Road,Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056.	17/01/90	17/10/90	21/12/90	22/12/90	04/11/93
2	M/s.Simca Advertising In the compound of National Airport Authority Land, Near Patco Petrol Pump, S.V.Road,Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056.	08/02/87	17/10/90	21/12/90	22/12/90	05/11/93

¶39

5/7

¶40

wpl 1944.16.doc

¶41

We are pleased to reject the appeal on following

¶42

ground:

¶43

As per the distance criteria introduced vide Part II A-7(a) of the Policy Guidelines, the inter se distance between the two hoardings has been fixed as 20 mtrs.

¶44

We therefore are of the opinion that, the date of application for erection of hoarding should be considered simultaneously the application also has not complied with the clauses mentioned in Show Cause Notice.”

¶45

In our considered view, therefore, in the absence of

¶46

there being any other provision to the contrary, the criteria of applying the date of application for erection of the hoarding cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. Both the Authorities have concurrently found against the petitioner and we do not find any perversity or irrationality in the view taken by the Authorities below in the facts of this case. The Authorities having noted that dates of sanction as well as dates of NOC in respect of both the advertisers happen to be the same, in the absence of any differentiating criteria, took into consideration the date of application, which view in our opinion, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.

¶47

We, therefore, decline to interfere with the

¶48

6/7

¶49

wpl 1944.16.doc

¶50

impugned order in exercise of our writ jurisdiction, Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶51

( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR, J.)

¶52

7/7

Hiroo Jethanand Thadani v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiroo Jethanand Thadani v. the 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

Joyce Rath Nath and Anr. Vs Mr. Ravi Sawant and Ors.

Joyce Rath Nath and Anr. Vs Ravi Sawant and 9 Ors.

Dilip Manglu Borse Vs Sangeeta D/O Suklal Bhamre @ Dipika W/O Sanjay Chavan

Avinash Patil and Anr. Vs Smt. Shalini Nadkumar Oka and Anr.

Nilesh Dinesh Patil Vs Shri Sanjay Deoram Bhoir and Ors.

Sudhakar Dagadu Bauskar and Ors. Vs the Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.