Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, ICICI Bank Limited and another, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) requiring them to obtain permission and pay fees for displaying illuminated signboards, ATM boards, and extension counter boards on their bank premises. The petitioners contended that such displays did not constitute 'advertisement' under Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and that the municipal corporation had no power to regulate them. The dispute had a prior history: the petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 2377 of 2002, which was dismissed by the High Court relying on Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4678 of 2005. The Supreme Court, in ICICI Bank & Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., held that the notices could not be said to have been issued under Section 328 of the Act and directed the respondents to re-examine the issue under Section 328-A. Pursuant to this, the MCGM issued a fresh order dated 24 October 2007, which the petitioners again challenged. The High Court analyzed the definition of 'advertisement' under Section 328-A, which includes any word, letter, model, sign, or other device intended to advertise or bring to notice any person or thing. The court held that the illuminated signboards and ATM boards displayed by the bank were clearly intended to attract customers and promote business, thus falling within the definition. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the doctrine of ejusdem generis should limit the definition to traditional advertisements, noting that the statutory definition is broad and inclusive. The court also held that the Supreme Court's earlier directions were binding and that the MCGM's order was in compliance. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the notice of motion was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Advertisement - Definition - Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Display of illuminated signboards and ATM boards by a bank on its premises - The court held that such displays are 'advertisements' under Section 328-A, as they are intended to attract customers and promote business. The doctrine of ejusdem generis does not apply to exclude them. The municipal corporation has the power to regulate and levy fees for such advertisements. (Paras 1-10) B) Municipal Law - Ultra Vires - Challenge to Notices - Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The petitioners challenged the notices requiring permission and fees for displaying signboards as ultra vires. The court held that the notices were validly issued under Section 328-A, and the municipal corporation's action was within its statutory powers. (Paras 1-10) C) Precedent - Binding Effect - Supreme Court Directions - ICICI Bank vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay - The Supreme Court had earlier directed the municipal corporation to re-examine the issue under Section 328-A. The High Court held that the Supreme Court's observations were binding and the municipal corporation's subsequent order was in compliance. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the display of illuminated signboards, ATM boards, and extension counter boards by a bank on its premises constitutes 'advertisement' within the meaning of Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and whether the municipal corporation can require permission and levy fees for such display.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The notice of motion is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'advertisement' under Section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- includes illuminated signboards and ATM boards displayed by banks
- Regulation of advertisements by municipal corporation is intra vires
- Doctrine of ejusdem generis not applicable to exclude such displays
- Supreme Court's earlier directions in ICICI Bank vs. MCGM binding on parties
