ADS TO GO MOBILE ONCE AGAIN
SC Sets Aside Bombay HC’s Ban On Vans With Mounted Hoardings ……..Swati Deshpande I TNN
Mumbai: The Supreme Court has set aside the Bombay high court’s blanket ban on mobile hoardings in the city, paving the way for advertisers to go mobile once again.
The ban on mobile hoardings was ordered in May this year; the high court had told the state government and the BMC to make appropriate regulations in that connection. It had also directed the police, civic and traffic authorities to take action after hearing their owners over design alterations of the vehicles.
Supri Advertising and Imaan Publicity, which went in appeal, said they were abiding by all the conditions laid down in their contracts.
Aspi Chinoy, senior counsel appearing for Supri, told the apex court that the agency was initially granted a contract by the BMC in 2003, which was extended for two years in 2007 for a licence fee of Rs 10 crore. “The traffic authorities had given their no objection since 2003 for the mobile hoarding vehicles and specified sites for parking the vehicles,’’ he said, adding that traffic flow was never an issue.
The Supreme Court noted that the “HC, in its anxiety to ensure free movement of traffic and the safety of both motorists and pedestrians and to avert any untoward incident, proceeded to question the decision taken by the competent authorities without having proper material before it to do so and which was beyond the scope of the petition before it’’.
The bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and G S Singhvi, which allowed mobile hoardings back in Mumbai, significantly shared a concern expressed by city gynaecologist Dr Anahita Pundole, who had launched the legal battle against the proliferation of hoardings in 2002.
The BMC denied that any law was violated while granting permission. It also pointed out that officers kept tabs on the mobile hoardings and removed vehicles after it was pointed out that 14 locations were in front of heritage premises.
Dr Pundole had alleged that the permission granted to different applicants not only caused environmental problems, but also resulted in serious damage to heritage buildings in the city. It also led to traffic problems—even on the arterial roads—and disrupted the movement of vehicles.
Dr Pundole said the move violated provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, the BMC Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.She also challenged the guidelines framed by the BMC and the fact that vehicles were altered to enable them to display mobile hoardings.
Chinoy said the HC, instead of focusing on the main issue of permission to mobile hoardings, “involved itself with other issues, such as types of vehicles and their alterations in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, and held that their licences ought to be cancelled. He pointed out that under the act, the state had the power to determine the places where the vehicles could stand either indefinitely or for a specific period.
BMC counsel Pallav Shisodia said the HC had failed to appreciate the fact that “granting of licences by the municipal corporation was part of its legitimate commercial activity on which fetters could not be imposed except on grounds of public interest and disruption of normal life within the area of its jurisdiction”.
The government’s stand was that it had “no objection to the grant of permission by the authorities concerned to the mobile hoarding vans subject to the condition that flow of traffic was not impaired’’.
The SC held that care was taken during the grant of permission to mobile hoarding vehicles, ensuring that flow of traffic was not hampered. “Since the authorities, which have been empowered to grant such licences and to specify spots for parking, have exercised their authority, it would not be safe for the court to question the decision taken by these authorities on the basis of allegations made by an individual, without having anything more to rely upon, especially in the face of the affidavits affirmed both on behalf of the Mumbai municipal corporation and the traffic police.”
The apex court also noted that the issue of alteration of vehicles to enable them to carry hoardings “was one sphere which possibly requires further inquiry.’’ It directed that Dr Pundole “may take up the issue with the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act.’’