The judgment pertains to the rejection of the petitioner’s request for retaining hoardings erected without proper authorization from the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA). The Bombay High Court considered the imposition of exemplary costs due to suppression of facts and procedural violations.

The petitioner installed hoardings exceeding permissible limits without obtaining necessary approvals from the MMRDA, relying instead on permissions from the Grampanchayat. The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to procedural lapses and factual suppression, with a difference of opinion regarding the quantum of exemplary costs.

1. Introduction and Case Details

• Paragraphs 1-2: The case involves the rejection by MMRDA of a request to retain unauthorized hoardings. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition with consensus on exemplary costs but differed on the quantum.

2. Petitioner's Argument

• Paragraphs 3-4:
  The petitioner contended no malafides were involved and highlighted precedents where lesser or no costs were imposed. The petitioner also relied on decisions from the Supreme Court regarding the imposition of costs and argued that Rs. 25,00,000 was excessive.

3. Respondents’ Argument

• Paragraphs 5-6:
  The MMRDA argued the petitioner acted unlawfully, benefitting commercially and bypassing the competent authority. The imposition of Rs. 25,00,000 was defended as a deterrent.

4. Judicial Reasoning

• Paragraphs 7-11:
  The Court analyzed the principles for imposing exemplary costs, referencing Supreme Court rulings and the absence of proper material to assess undue gain or expenditure. Emphasis was placed on judicial discretion and the balance between deterrence and fairness.

5. Conclusion and Decision

• Paragraphs 12-13:
  The Court resolved the difference by imposing Rs. 5,00,000 in exemplary costs, citing this as proportionate given the lack of factual data supporting higher penalties.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India: Article 226 (Extraordinary Jurisdiction)
• Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960: Rule 7, Chapter-I
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 35 & 35A (Costs in Civil Litigation)

Ratio Decidendi:
Exemplary costs are justified where procedural lapses, suppression of facts, or misstatements are proven. However, the quantum must reflect judicial discretion, proportional to the benefit derived and based on available evidence.

Subjects:
Imposition of Exemplary Costs in Civil Litigation Involving Unauthorized Commercial Activities.

• Judicial Discretion
• Exemplary Costs
• Unauthorized Advertising
• Suppression of Facts
• Constitutional Remedies