Petitioner challenged rejection letters for display advertisement on drinking water facility citing policy categorization errors. Court allowed exemption subject to general exceptions and disposed of the application.
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions; application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~32
MR. ABDUL SHARIQ NIZAMI ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Anirudh Bakhru and Mr.Ayush Puri, Advocates
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Harsha Peechara, ASC with Mr.Ashish Tiwari, Ms.Gauri P.Desai and Ms.Kirti Sinha, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
O R D E R % 07.02.2019 CM Appl. No. 5471-5472/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1209/2019, CM Appl. No. 5470/2019
This petition challenges the impugned letters of refusal dated 13.08.2018 and 07.09.2018 issued by Joint Director (Enforcement) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner filed the letters dated 27.03.2018 and 20.08.2018 seeking permission for display advertisements over a public amenity in the form of drinking water facility. It is submitted such applications were rejected under S.No. 1.6.iv. of Delhi Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2017. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner his case is not covered under the said category and instead the application was moved under category 2.2 of the Delhi Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2017. The categorisation under the Policy are as under :-
Category 1 : Large-format advertisements, mainly fixed on billboards/Unipoles/Bipoles/Variable Message advertising device such as LED, LCD Screens etc./and bridge/flyover panels etc;
Category 2 : Advertisements mounted on public amenities, like public toilets, garbage collection points/Flag Signs etc;
Category 3 : Fleets and transport related infrastructure;
Category 4 : Advertisement devices for self-advertising in commercial areas
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken me to summary of category 2 devices viz.
6.2 Summary of Category-2 devices
| S. No. |
Description of device | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Permitted subject to General and Specific Permission Criteria |
||
| 2.1 | Public amenity mounted devices: Garbage and toilet facilities |
Permitted |
| 2.2 | Devices Mounted on Service Oriented facility | Permitted |
| 2.3 | Devices mounted on Roadside kiosks | Permitted |
| 2.4 | Devices along with Information for public | Permitted |
Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to specific conditions and provisions : Category 2 :
7.2 Specific conditions and provisions : Category 2
| S.No. | Type | General description | Specific | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| parame | ters | ||||
| 2.2 | Devices mounted |
Drinking water, kiosk outside | <70% | of | the |
| On service |
colony to facilitate payment of | visible | area | to | |
| oriented Facility | bills/etc.(G2C kiosk) | Public |
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare
perusal of the refusal letter would reveal it was complete nonapplication of mind as it did not decide if the petitioner’s case is covered under category 1.6.iv. or under category 2.2 .
Hence at this stage the petitioner requests his representation made on 13.09.2018 be considered by the respondent. Further the petitioner would also file the location chart of the subject facility and on his so filing, the representation dated 13.09.2018 be disposed of by reasoned/speaking order within three weeks thereof.
The petition along with application, if any, stands disposed of. Order dasti under signature of the Court Master.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
FEBRUARY 07, 2019 VLD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow exemption in appeal regarding advertisement display permission rejection under Delhi Outdoor Advertising Policy 2017.
Whether the impugned refusal letters were arbitrary due to non-application of mind regarding policy categorization.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Abdul Shariq Nizami
New Delhi Municipal Council
Yogesh Khanna
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
