Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Pandharinath Jadhav, a resident of Aurangabad, filed a writ petition in public interest before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in February 2006. The petition sought directions against the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation to enforce a complete ban on hoardings/boards on guard rails at Kranti Chowk, limit display of political party hoardings to one day on public roads/medians/squares, prohibit congratulatory or birthday hoardings in public places, and direct the Commissioner to take strict penal action against persons or political parties indulging in defacement of public property. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents filed affidavits and action taken reports. The court appointed Mr. F.R. Tandale as amicus curiae to espouse the petitioner's cause. The controversy broadly related to display of illegal hoardings, banners, posters, and temporary arches in Aurangabad city without prior permission, causing obstruction to traffic, defacement of public property, public nuisance, and being an eyesore. The Corporation's counsel took a fair stand that such illegal activities cause financial loss to the Corporation and affect the city's beauty. The Corporation identified 329 approved spots with permanent steel frames certified by the City Engineer for displaying hoardings, and charges are prescribed by the General Body resolution dated 25th September, 2006. The Corporation accepted that the rates require revision due to passage of time and stated that a proposal would be submitted for revision. The court, after hearing the amicus curiae and the Corporation's counsel, disposed of the petition with directions to enforce a complete ban on illegal hoardings, revise rates, and take strict action against violators.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Illegal Hoardings - Defacement of Public Property - Municipal Corporation's Duty - The petitioner, a resident of Aurangabad, filed a PIL seeking directions to ban hoardings on guard rails at Kranti Chowk, limit political party hoardings to one day, prohibit congratulatory/birthday hoardings in public places, and take penal action against defacement of public property. The court, after hearing the amicus curiae and the Corporation, noted that illegal hoardings cause traffic obstruction, affect city beauty, and cause financial loss to the Corporation. The Corporation identified 329 approved spots with steel frames for hoardings and prescribed charges via resolution dated 25th September, 2006. The court directed the Corporation to enforce a complete ban on illegal hoardings, revise rates, and take strict action against violators. (Paras 1-4) B) Public Nuisance - Traffic Obstruction - Eyesore - The court observed that illegal hoardings/banners/posters in public places cause public nuisance, obstruction to traffic, and are an eyesore to viewers. The Corporation's counsel fairly accepted that such activities cause financial loss and affect the city's beauty. (Paras 2-3) C) Municipal Corporation - Advertisement Regulations - Approved Spots - The Corporation has 329 identified approved spots with permanent steel frames certified by the City Engineer for displaying hoardings. Charges are prescribed by the General Body resolution dated 25th September, 2006, which the Corporation intends to revise. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the display of illegal hoardings, banners, posters, and temporary arches in public places and on roads without prior permission causes public nuisance, defacement of public property, and obstruction to traffic, and what directions should be issued to the Municipal Corporation to prevent such illegal activities.
Final Decision
The court disposed of the petition with directions to the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation to enforce a complete ban on illegal hoardings, banners, posters, and temporary arches in public places and on roads without prior permission; to revise the advertisement rates prescribed by the General Body resolution dated 25th September, 2006; and to take strict penal action against violators. The court also noted the Corporation's fair stand and the action plan submitted.
Law Points
- Public Interest Litigation
- Defacement of Public Property
- Illegal Hoardings
- Traffic Obstruction
- Municipal Corporation's Duty
- Advertisement Regulations
