Disposed

Skycom and Anr. v. Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Delhi HC23 Dec 2025CONT.CAS(C)/1906/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of orders directing the MCD to grant permission for displaying advertisements inside DLF Avenue Mall, Saket. The Court directed a joint inspection by MCD, fresh area calculation, deposit of bank guarantee by petitioners, and permission to display advertisements as an interim measure, subject to the pending writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to display advertisements in DLF Avenue Mall after joint inspection, fresh calculation and bank guarantee deposit; registered-advertiser condition not insisted upon meanwhile.

Skycom and Anr. Vs Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 23^rd December, 2025

¶4

- CONT.CAS(C) 1906/2025

¶5

SKYCOM AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Dayan Krishan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Adv. (M:9899426760)

¶6

versus

¶7

SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC-MCD with Mr. Parvin Bansal, Mr. Abinav Jha, Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocates

¶8

Mr. Charul Sarin, Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocates for R-4 (M:9818770156) Ms. Nandini Gore, Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Mr. Swati Bhardwaj, Advocates for R-5 and 6 (M:9013546728)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶11

MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

¶12

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 26^th November, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) 5301/2019 titled as “M/S Skycom and Anr. Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.” .

¶13

It is to be noted that vide the said order dated 26^th November, 2025, this Court by relying upon an earlier interim order passed by this Court dated 20^th May, 2019, in W.P.(C) 5301/2019 , had passed directions, in the following manner:

¶14

“xxx xxx xxx

¶15

11. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, it is directed that

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶17

the petitioners shall submit an application with the MCD, within a period of two working days from today, seeking permission for display of advertisements inside DLF Avenue, Saket, New Delhi.

¶18

12. Upon the receipt of the said application by the MCD from the petitioners with respect to display of advertisements as aforesaid, the MCD shall proceed to grant permission to the petitioners in terms of the order dated 20^th May, 2019, passed by this Court.

¶19

13. The MCD shall also be at liberty to inspect the area in question, in order to assess the area over which the petitioners propose to display the advertisements.

¶20

14. Upon inspection, the MCD shall make a fresh calculation as per the area in question, and intimate the same to the petitioners.

¶21

15. The petitioners, on the basis of the calculation as provided by the MCD, shall deposit the Bank Guarantee with the MCD, in terms of the order dated 20^th May, 2019, passed by this Court.

¶22

16. This Court takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the advertisements are to be displayed with effect from 01^st December, 2025.

¶23

17. Accordingly, let the needful be done by the MCD as well as the petitioners before the said date, i.e., 01^st December, 2025.

¶24

18. The aforesaid directions have been passed, and shall be complied by the parties, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.

¶25

19. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of.”

¶26

Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that this Court had clearly directed that the petitioner herein, shall submit an application with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) within a period of two days, seeking permission for display of advertisements inside DLF Avenue Mall, Saket, New Delhi. Further, the MCD was directed to grant permission to the petitioners in terms of the earlier interim order dated 20^th May, 2019.

¶27

However, for the purposes of assessing the area where the petitioners proposed to display the advertisement, and for making calculation as regards the amount which the petitioners were required to deposit by way bank

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶30

guarantee, it was directed that the MCD shall be at liberty to inspect the area in question.

¶31

The present contempt petition has been filed as the MCD has not complied with the said orders and instead of granting permission to the petitioners in terms of the interim orders dated 20^th May, 2019 and 26^th November, 2025, as was directed by this Court, the MCD issued a letter dated 08^th December, 2025, which is reproduced as under:

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶34

Perusal of the aforesaid letter issued by the MCD reveals that the MCD proceeded on the ground that no permission could be granted to the petitioners herein, as it is one of the mandatory conditions that an applicant must be registered as an „Advertiser‟ in the panel of MCD. There were certain other related issues that have also been raised by the MCD in the aforesaid letter dated 08^th December, 2025, on account of which the present contempt petition has come to be filed.

¶35

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the earlier interim order dated 20^th May, 2019 was passed, the petitioner did not have any registration as a registered advertiser with the

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶38

MCD. It is submitted that the petitioners obtained registration only subsequently on 03^rd July, 2019, which was valid in the first instance till 31^st March, 2020 and subsequently, extended till 31^st March, 2021. Thus, it is the categorical case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been displaying advertisements in the mall in question in terms of the order dated 20^th May, 2019, uninterruptedly and regularly since then.

¶39

Thus, it is manifest that despite lapse of registration of the petitioner as a registered advertiser of the MCD on 31^st March, 2021, the petitioner herein has been allowed to continue to display advertisements inside the malls for which permission was so granted, i.e., Select City Walk Saket and DLF Promenade Vasant Kunj, uninterruptedly and regularly. 9. This Court takes note of the submission on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent-MCD, that the officials of the MCD are continuously regulating the display of advertisements by the petitioner inside the malls, viz. Select City Walk, Saket and DLF Promenade, Vasant Kunj. 10. The main contention as raised on behalf of the MCD is that the petitioner as of today is not registered as a registered advertiser. 11. This Court also takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the MCD that as per the scheme of the Statute, i.e., Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act”) as well as the Outdoor Advertisement Policy, an applicant for display of advertisements, is required to be a registered advertiser. 12. There is no quarrel as far as the said submission of respondent-MCD is concerned. The scheme of the Act and the Outdoor Advertisement Policy is very clear to the effect that any party, who intends to display advertisement as outdoor advertisement, is required to not only seek

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶42

permission from the MCD, but also has to be a registered advertiser with the MCD. However, it is to be noted that the core issue which has been raised by the petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.(C) 5301/2019 pending before this Court, is that the petitioners are displaying advertisements inside a mall, therefore, the petitioners are not required to be registered advertiser or seek any permission from the MCD, as the same does not constitute outdoor advertisement, and not amenable to the jurisdiction of the MCD.

¶43

The said issues, as raised by the petitioner, are pending in the writ petition, W.P.(C) 5301/2019 titled as “M/S Skycom and Anr. Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.” . Therefore, on account of the said issues having been raised by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate that, as an interim measure, on account of the earlier interim order dated 20^th May, 2019 which was passed in favour of the petitioner, the said mandatory requirement of a registered advertiser, would not be insisted upon by the MCD for the time being, subject to the outcome of the aforesaid writ petition, where the said issues are pending adjudication.

¶44

This court notes that vide order dated 20^th May, 2019, the Predecessor Bench of this Court has already allowed the petitioners to display advertisements inside Select City Walk, Saket and DLF Promenade, Vasant Kunj, which advertisements are displayed by the petitioners even as on date. 15. As noted earlier, the registration of the petitioners as an advertiser of the MCD has already expired on 31^st March, 2021, and the petitioners have been allowed to display the advertisements without any interference or disturbance from the MCD.

¶45

Though learned counsel for the MCD has attempted to justify the action of the MCD and has brought forth differentiation on the ground that

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶48

at the time of passing of interim order dated 20^th May, 2019, the application of the petitioner for registration was pending, however, considering the pendency of the adjudication of the said issues in the aforesaid writ petition, in considered view of the Court, this aspect may not be insisted upon by the MCD for the time being, however, purely as an interim measure.

¶49

It is to be noted that vide order dated 26^th November, 2025, this Court has already directed the MCD to pass requisite order for allowing the petitioners to display advertisements inside DLF Avenue Mall, Saket, New Delhi, in terms of the earlier interim order dated 20^th May, 2019.

¶50

Accordingly, it is deemed expedient that a joint inspection be carried out by the MCD in the presence of the authorized representatives of the petitioners.

¶51

Accordingly, a joint inspection shall be carried out by the MCD on 26^th December, 2025 at 11:00 AM.

¶52

During inspection, concerned officials of the MCD shall assess the area over which the petitioners propose to display the advertisements.

¶53

Upon inspection, the MCD shall make a fresh calculation as per the area in question and communicate the same to the petitioners. 22. The petitioners on the basis of the calculation, as provided by the MCD, shall deposit the bank guarantee to the MCD in terms of the earlier order dated 20^th May, 2019, passed by this Court.

¶54

After inspection by the MCD, the petitioners shall be permitted to display the advertisement forthwith, subject to the deposit of bank guarantee of the amount in terms of the amount indicated by the MCD. The requisite bank guarantee shall be deposited by the petitioners within a period of one week with the MCD, after communication to the petitioners.

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶57

Needless to state that in case the petitioners do not comply with the directions passed by this Court and do not deposit the requisite bank guarantee, the MCD shall be at liberty to take action, in accordance with law.

¶58

It is clarified that this order will not be treated as a precedent for other advertisers to seek permission to display advertisement inside a Mall. 26. It is further clarified that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the present case, in view of the earlier order dated 20^th May, 2019 passed by this Court.

¶59

It is further directed that the MCD will continue to regulate the display of advertisements by the petitioners, so that the safety and security of the public at large is maintained. 28. Learned counsel appearing for DLF Avenue Mall, Saket, New Delhi is present in Court and submits that they have a private arrangement with the petitioners and have no objection if the advertisements are displayed by the petitioners. The aforesaid statement is taken note of.

¶60

Mere fact that the petitioners are allowed to display advertisements inside the DLF Avenue Mall, Saket, New Delhi, by virtue of this order, the same shall not be construed in any manner, that the statutory requirements as indicated in the Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2017, DMC Act, 1957 and the Advertisement Bye Laws, are being violated in any manner.

¶61

The rights and contentions of the parties are left open, which shall be decided in the pending writ petition, W.P.(C) 5301/2019 , wherein, all the issues as raised by the petitioners with regard to display of advertisements inside a mall and the jurisdiction of the MCD, are under consideration.

¶62

With the aforesaid directions, the present contempt petition is

¶63

Signature Not Verified

¶64

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶65

accordingly, disposed of.

¶66

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶67

DECEMBER 23, 2025/ au

¶68

Signature Not Verified

¶69

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

Skycom and Anr. v. Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Skycom and Anr. v. Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Kumar Vs Shri Parmeshwar Dayal

Ashok Kumar Vs Vinay Bhusan

Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs Monika Jain

Wg Cdr Nivedita J Katoch Vs Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh and Ors.

Vidya Parkash Gupta, Age 74 Years, & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Daljit Kumar & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Ravinder Lal Airi Vs Sh. Shashvat Saurabh, the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Leena Anand Vs Mr. R.K.Paul & Ors.

Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Mahesh Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited & Anr.

Devanshu Kapoor Vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited

Swati Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council