Vishal J Pallod vs Sandeep Khot

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner, who is the proprietor of the advertising agency, seeks to quash and set aside the letter dated 1^st February 2024 issued by Respondent No.2 - Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd. (PMPML) a public limited not governmental company and to direct the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to grant No Objection Certificate to the Petitioner to display the advertisements for a period of five years under the agreement dated 1^st August 2022.

¶24

Facts giving rise to filing of the Petition in a nut shell are that on 13^th January 2022, PMPML issued E-Tender Notice inviting bids for advertisement rights on hoardings, LED Backlit Box at BRTS Bus Shelters, advertisement boards on BTS Corridors, advertisement outside BRT Bus Shelters and illuminated Kiosks at Depots and Stands at Pune Metropolitan Area for a period of five years. The Petitioner participated and on 20^th April 2022 was declared a successful bidder. Thereupon, a letter of Award was issued to him. Thereafter, on 1^st August 2022, an agreement was executed between the Petitioner and PMPML, by which advertisement rights were granted to the Petitioner for a period of five years.

¶25

No Objection Certificate is required to be obtained under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Regulation and Control of the Display of Sky-signs and Advertisement) (MMC) Rules, 2022, which are made in

¶26

2/4

¶27

JPP 16. WP 4806.24.doc

¶28

exercise of the powers under Section 244 and 245 read with sub-section 456A(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Under Rule 25 of the MMC Rules, 2022, the Applicant is required to make an application to the Municipal Corporation seeking NOC to display the advertisement. The Petitioner submitted applications to Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) as well as Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC). However, the aforesaid applications, by a letter dated 1^st February 2024, were rejected without assigning any reason.

¶29

Hence, this Petition.

¶30

At the outset, the learned Counsel representing PMC and PCMC submitted that in case the Petitioner submits an application in consonance with the Rules along with requisite documents, the Competent Authority of the Municipal Corporation shall pass an order on the aforesaid application within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such an application.

¶31

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner shall submit an application within a period of one week with all the requisite documents under the MMC Rules of 2022.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned communication dated 1^st February

¶33

3/4

¶34

JPP 16. WP 4806.24.doc

¶35

2024 is quashed and set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions :-

¶36

(i) The Petitioner shall make applications under Rule 25 of the MMC Rules, 2022 within a period of ten days from today seeking NOC to the PMC as well as PCMC.

¶37

(ii) The Competent Authority of the PMC as well as PCMC shall decide the applications by a speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such an applications.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

In view of order passed today in Writ Petition No. 4806 of 2024,

¶40

no further order is required to be passed in the Contempt Petition No. 522 of 2024. The same is accordingly disposed of.

¶41

4/4

Vishal J Pallod v. Sandeep Khot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal J Pallod v. Sandeep Khot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. vs Muncipal Corporation Greater Mumbai

Shahbaz Mumtaz Khan vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Nalanda Bahuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, through Authorized Representative Mr. Bhaskar Kaduba Shinde vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Department

Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited

Anuj Krishnakumar Mittal vs State of Maharashtra

Ssakash Developers and Builders Private Limited vs Om Jagdish Co. Operative Housing Society Limited