Bombay High Court Addresses Rampant Illegal Hoardings by Political and Religious Entities Across Maharashtra. Court Interprets Definition of Skysign and Requirement of Written Permission Under Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay was seized with a group of Public Interest Litigations and Writ Petitions raising serious concerns regarding the rampant display of illegal hoardings, banners, arches, posters, and advertisements across towns and cities in Maharashtra. The petitions highlighted the defacement of public and private properties visible from streets, road dividers, footpaths, and poles, often without requisite permissions. The court observed from the affidavits and reports on record that the political class, including leaders and workers of various political parties, was primarily responsible for such illegalities. They were found to be displaying hoardings and banners to welcome political figures, celebrate birthdays or anniversaries, extend festival greetings, and congratulate on achievements. Religious and social organizations were also indulging in similar unauthorized displays during festivals like Ganpati, Navratri, and Dahihandi, often near pandals or stages, causing distraction to motorists. Despite numerous orders passed by the High Court in these matters and by benches at Aurangabad and Nagpur, and even after contempt notices were issued to political leaders who later tendered apologies and assurances, the illegality persisted. The court attributed this continued violation partly to the failure of top political leaders to prevent their workers from such activities and the lack of serious action by authorities, as political involvement made enforcement difficult. The judgment addressed the governing legal framework under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, particularly Section 244 and Rule 1 of Chapter XI, which define 'skysign' and mandate written permission from the Municipal Commissioner for its erection, fixing, or retention. The court noted that Section 244(1) prohibits any person from erecting, fixing, or retaining a skysign without such permission, and permission may be granted or renewed for up to two years subject to certain voiding conditions. The judgment was pronounced on 31st January 2017 after hearing submissions on 15th October 2016, but the final directions are not captured in the provided excerpt.

Headnote

A) Skysigns and Advertisements - Definition and Scope - Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Section 244 and Rule 1 - The definition of skysign includes any advertisement, announcement or direction supported on a structure and visible against the sky from any street, including balloons, parachutes, etc. (Paras 4)

B) Skysigns and Advertisements - Requirement of Written Permission - Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Section 244(1) - No person shall erect, fix or retain any skysign without written permission of the Commissioner; permission may be granted or renewed for a period not exceeding two years and is void under certain conditions. (Paras 5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the rampant display of illegal hoardings, banners, arches, posters and advertisements on public and private properties visible from streets contravenes the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and other municipal laws, and what directions are necessary to curb the illegality

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Definition of skysign under Rule 1 of Chapter XI
  • Schedule D to Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act
  • 1949
  • Requirement of written permission from Commissioner for erecting
  • fixing or retaining skysign under Section 244(1)
  • Deeming provisions in Section 244(2) regarding ownership/occupation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (01) 33

Public Interest Litigation No. 155 of 2011 (with connected matters)

2017-01-31

A.S. Oka, A.A. Sayed

Uday P. Warunjikar, A.B. Vagyani, Manish Pabale, Mahesh Rawool, Vaibhav Patankar, Aniruddha Garge, A.Y. Sakhare, J.F. Reis, Trupti Puranik, Abhijit Kulkarni, Pramod Kathane, Rathesh Dube, N.R. Bubna, Shriram Kulkarni, A.S. Rao, Sameer Kumbhakoni, G.H. Keluskar, Shruti Kandoi, S.R. Ganbavale, Ajit Hon, Yuvraj Narvankar, Sandesh Patil, Atul Damle, Sandeep Aole, Sujit Chakrabarti, Vishesh Kalra, Dinesh Adgule, V.P. Sawant, P.M. Jadhav

M/s Suswarajya Foundation, Satara and Anr.

The Collector, Satara and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Public Interest Litigation regarding rampant display of illegal hoardings, banners, arches, posters and advertisements on public and private properties across Maharashtra

Remedy Sought

Directions to curb illegal display of skysigns and advertisements and enforcement of municipal laws

Filing Reason

Widespread and continuing illegality of displaying hoardings and banners without permission, defacing public spaces, and failure of authorities to take action, especially by political parties and religious organizations

Previous Decisions

Several orders had been passed by the High Court from time to time in this group of PILs, including contempt notices to political leaders/political workers, but illegality continued

Issues

Whether the rampant display of illegal hoardings, banners, arches, posters and advertisements on public and private properties visible from streets contravenes the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and other municipal laws, and what directions are necessary to curb the illegality

Judgment Excerpts

Notwithstanding the large number of orders passed by this Court from time to time in this group of Public Interest Litigations/Writ Petitions as well as by the Benches at Aurangabad and Nagpur, the illegality still continues in the State. To sum up, notwithstanding several orders passed by this Court and notwithstanding the actions initiated for committing Contempt, rampant display of illegal hoardings, banners, arches, etc continues unabated in the State. Subsection (1) of Section 244 of the said Act of 1949 lays down that no person is entitled to erect, fix or retain any skysigns of the kind prescribed by the aforesaid Rule 1(1) without written permission of the Commissioner.

Procedural History

The group of PILs/Writ Petitions was filed over several years (2008-2014). The High Court had passed several orders from time to time, including contempt notices to political leaders and workers for continuing illegal display of hoardings. Despite assurances, situation did not improve. The matters were heard on 15th October 2016 and judgment was reserved and pronounced on 31st January 2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: 244, 245, Rule 1 of Chapter XI
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Addresses Rampant Illegal Hoardings by Political and Religious Entities Across Maharashtra. Court Interprets Definition of Skysign and Requirement of Written Permission Under Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Writ Petition for Mandamus Against State and Panchayat for Failure to Enforce Stop Work Notice on Illegal Construction. Court Directs Demolition of Unauthorized Construction by Neighbour Without Permission and Setba...