Disposed

M/S Advert Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Mar 2017W.P.(C)/3273/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court treated a writ petition regarding alleged violations of the Outdoor Advertisement Policy as a representation. The Court directed the Department to issue a speaking order within four weeks addressing the petitioner's averments and fact-finding requirements.

What did the court decide?

Petition treated as a representation; Department to pass a speaking order within four weeks.

M/S Advert Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs South Delhi… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3273/2016 & C.M. No.13939/2016

¶4

M/S ADVERT COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD.

¶5

..... Petitioner Through Mr. Karan Sachdeva and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Shiotriya, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS

¶8

..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Mr. Sachin Gupta and Mr. Govind Kumar, Advocates for MCD Mr. Anil Mittal and Ms. Komal Aggarwal, Advocates for R-2

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶10

O R D E R % 16.03.2017

¶11

Petitioner before this Court is M/s. Advert Communication Pvt. Ltd. He had been granted permission by respondent no.2 (UP Irrigation Department) to install advertisement hoardings and unipoles on the land and bridges over the canal under the jurisdiction of respondents no.2 and 3 at Kalindi Kunj, Delhi. Pursuant to the MOU executed between the petitioner and respondent no.2 he had been granted the aforenoted rights which contract is to expire on 30.05.2017. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent no.1/ SDMC has wrongly and arbitrarily drawn a conclusion that the

¶12

petitioner was not advertising as per the Outdoor Advertisement Policy (OAP- 2007). In fact even without a show cause notice the petitioner being apprehensive that the respondent would remove his hoardings, on his own, had removed the two gantries which had been permitted to be displayed by him at Kalindi Kunj, Delhi. This was a pre-emptive protective measure adopted by him.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the petitioner violated the terms of OAP 2007; the counter affidavit of the respondent is clear; not only are the two gantries out of size but the unipoles which have also been placed at the site by the petitioner do not have the minimum distance of 75 metres from each other. The other violations committed by the petitioner have also been detailed in the said counter affidavit. Respondent had in fact in a joint action removed the said gantries and unipoles on 18.04.2016.

¶14

This submission is disputed by the petitioner. His submission is that he had removed these gantries as he was under an apprehension that the respondent would remove them without notice to him; gantries being expensive to the value of almost about Rs. 30 lakhs he had taken this measure of removal of the said gantries on his own. Additional submission being that he may be permitted to display these gantries; he is not in violation of OAP 2007. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has no connection with the unipoles.

¶15

This Court notes these submissions and counter submissions of the parties. There are certain fact findings which have to be returned by the Department i.e. the measurement of the gantries as also the distance of unipoles besides other objections raised by the

¶16

Department.

¶17

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner which shall be considered by the Department and a speaking order on the averments made by the petitioner shall be answered by the Department within an outer limit of four weeks from today.

¶18

No further orders are called for in this petition. Petition disposed of.

¶19

Order dasti under signatures of Court Master.

¶20

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶21

MARCH 16, 2017 gb

M/S Advert Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Advert Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

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

Gurdev Singh Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ratno

UOI & Ors. Vs R.P.Tiwari

Balbir Singh Vs S D M C and Anr.

P.H.Patel Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abc Beverages Private Limited Vs Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation (Irctc) Ltd.

Jagdish Kumar Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Dr.Usha Rani Vs University of Delhi

Gurdev Singh Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs S D M C and Anr.

Ramesh Pershad Seth Vs MCD and Ors.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Atul Kumar Saxena

Zile Singh Vs Food Corporation of India & Ors.

Foundation for Organisational Research & Education Fore School of Management Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.