Disposed

M/S Pooja Marketing v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2023WP/18922/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought renewal of advertisement hoarding license under Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and BBMP bye-laws. Respondent-BBMP submitted a policy decision halts new licenses. Court disposed of petition as prayer became infructuous without addressing merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as prayer became infructuous due to policy decision stopping license grants.

M/S Pooja Marketing Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23022 WP No. 18922 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 18922 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S POOJA MARKETING A PROPRIETARY BUSINESS CONCERN IN

¶10

OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENT AGENCY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.400, ROYAL CORNER, NO.1 & 2, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. MANMOHAN SINGH MAAN.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION OFFICES, N.R. SQUARE, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560002 BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER WEST ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560002

¶17

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER T DASARAHALLI ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560064

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:23022 WP No. 18922 of 2017

¶20

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER SOUTH ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560094

¶21

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560068

¶22

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER EAST ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560094

¶23

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER YELAHANKA ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560094

¶24

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU.- -560016

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA ADVOCATE)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE PRESCRIBED APPLICATION FORMS FOR RENEWAL OF SCHEDULE ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS UNDER BYE-LAW SEC. II.3A (23) AND SEC. III.4.A.(XV) AT ANNEX-4 FOR GRANT OF RENEWAL OF PERMISSION UNDER SEC. 135 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, PROVIDED TO THE ADVERTISEMENT BYE-LAWS AND ETC.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:23022 WP No. 18922 of 2017

¶31

ORDER

¶32

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶33

Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP, for short) submits that the prayer made in this writ petition has become infructuous, in view of the fact that the petitioner is seeking renewal of the Schedule Advertisement hoardings under bye-law Sections II.3A (23), III.4.A (XV) and other provisions of the bye-laws read with Section 135 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Learned Counsel submits that a policy decision was taken by the respondent-BBMP to stop granting licenses for displaying advertisement and commercial hoardings in the city of Bengaluru. That being the position, unless and until there is a re-decision enabling a person to put up a commercial hoarding/advertisement, the question of renewing the license would not arise.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:23022 WP No. 18922 of 2017

¶36

Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not

¶37

dispute the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP.

¶38

Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of as the prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

M/S Pooja Marketing v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pooja Marketing v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

M/S. Mysore Taluk Co-Operative Vs the Under Secretary to Government

Velu B Pethi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manu Perumunda S Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Snn Abode LLP Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Prachar Outdoor Advertising Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S. the Bangalore Outdoors Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike