Case Note & Summary
The matter involved consolidated writ petitions filed by outdoor advertising firms and an association challenging licence fee revisions imposed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) on advertising hoardings. Writ Petition Nos. 735 of 1997 and 1407 of 1997 originally impugned a resolution dated 12th December 1996 increasing the applicable rates. These earlier petitions were dismissed for default of one and later restored, but by the time of hearing the 1996 resolution had been superseded by Circular No. 999 dated 11th December 2009. The subsequent Writ Petition Nos. 1968 of 2013 (Yog Advertising) and 1068 of 2010 (Indian Outdoor) directly challenged the 2009 circular. The petitioners sought quashing of the circular and a direction that licence fees be accepted at the previous rates. The Court noted that under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Section 328A requires prior written permission of the Municipal Commissioner for any advertisement, and Section 479(2) empowers the Corporation to charge such fees as fixed with its sanction. The petitioners’ case, as presented by counsel, began with reference to a resolution of 8th May 1985, though the text of the judgment broke off before completion. The Division Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and G.S. Patel reserved judgment on 26th November 2015 and pronounced on 27th January 2016, but the final decision and reasoning beyond the statutory framework and the issue of infructuousness were not included in the extracted portion of the judgment.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Licence Fees for Advertisements - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Sections 328A and 479 - The Corporation is empowered under Section 328A to require prior permission for advertisements and under Section 479(2) to fix licence fees with sanction of the Corporation. Petitioners challenged Circular No. 999 dated 11th December 2009 revising upwards the licence fees, contending it violated the Act. The Court was to consider whether the fee revision circular fell within the Corporation’s statutory powers. (Paras 5-6) B) Civil Procedure - Infructuous Petitions - Earlier writ petitions (WP 735/1997 and WP 1407/1997) challenging a 1996 fee resolution became infructuous when that resolution was superseded by the 2009 circular. The Court held that the challenge would be confined to the extant 2009 resolution, and the earlier petitions had become infructuous over time. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Circular No. 999 dated 11th December 2009 increasing licence fees for advertising hoardings is valid under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Law Points
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- Section 328A
- Section 479
- regulation of advertisements
- licence fees for hoardings
- superseding resolutions
