Zoru Darayus Bhathena vs M/S. Suswarajya Foundation, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11220 Bom

                                                                      6-PIL.155.2011


Jvs.
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 155 OF 2011
                                 WITH
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2019
                                 WITH
                CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 826 OF 2018
                                 WITH
                CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 1094 OF 2018
                                 WITH
               CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 28641 OF 2018

       Suswarajya Foundation, Satara & Anr. }                Petitioners
                 versus
       The Collector, Satara & Ors.         }                Respondents


       Dr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar for the
       petitioners.
       Mr. Pradeep Rajagopal with Ms. Drishti Shah i/b.
       Ms.Rekha Rajagopal for Election Commission of India.
       Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Ms. K. H.
       Mastakar for MCGM.
       Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni with Mr. Gourav Shahane and
       Mr. Krushna Jaybhay for Pune Municipal Corporation.
       Ms. Savita K. Sharma i/b. Mr. Prajeep J. Thorat for
       AMC.
       Mr. Pramod G. Kathane with Mr. Samyak A. Bhatkar
       for respondents 7 & 17.
       Mr. A. A. Garge for respondent no. 6.
       Ms. Stefy J. Dias i/b. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for
       respondent no. 24.
       Mr. Shantanu Patil i/b. Abhijit Adangule for
       respondent no. 18 (Kolhapur Municipal Corporation).
       Ms. Pooja Joshi-Deshpande for respondent no. 21
       (Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation).
       Mr. Mayur Mohite i/b. Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar for
       respondent no. 25.



                                       1
        ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2023           ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2023 03:23:50 :::
                                                                          6-PIL.155.2011


Mr. Shriram Kulkarni with Mr. Gaurav Ugale for
respondent no. 11 (Dudhani Municipal Council).
Mr. N. R. Bubna for respondent no. 9 (TMC) and
respondent no. 17 (Bhivandi Nizampur Municipal
Corporation).
Mr. Shantanu Gurav i/b. Mr. Sarang Aradhye for
Panvel Municipal Corporation.
Mr. G. H. Keluskar for respondents 15 & 16.
Mr. Rajesh G. Singh i/b. Legal Liaisons for respondent
no. 27 in CAI/36/2019.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. B. V.
Samant, Additional Government Pleader and Mr. M. M.
Pabale, AGP for State.
Mr. Tejesh Dande                 for   Navi   Mumbai        Municipal
Corporation.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for respondent no. 3 (Nashik
Municipal Corporation.


               CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
                      ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

               DATE:            1st NOVEMBER 2023


P.C.:

1. This Court, by means of its judgment dated 30 th January 2017, had issued several directions to the Government authorities as also to the municipal authorities to ensure that unauthorised and illegal banners including flex banners and hoardings are not put up in the city.

2. Considering the menace created by such illegal banners and hoardings, the State Legislature has enacted Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1995 (hereafter referred to as "the Act of 1995"), which, inter alia, contains penalty clause for defacement of property as well.

6-PIL.155.2011

3. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that despite there being a statutory mechanism in place in the form of the Act of 1995, the authorities, both of the State Government as also of the municipal bodies have so far not taken appropriate steps to administer the said Act, as a result of which, the city, on occasions, gets flooded by illegal banners and hoardings. It is also the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the material used in these banners are sometimes too hazardous for health for the reason that it is made of substances like polythene and non-biodegradable substances.

4. We are unable to appreciate such a situation keeping in view the judgment dated 30th January 2017 as also various provisions of the Act of 1995 enacted by the State Legislature.

5. It is also to be worthwhile to notice that the offences under the Act of 1995, which are punishable, are cognizable as well, however, the general grievance expressed at the Bar is that the said Act is not being properly administered in the sense that there may be cases where criminal action may be initiated, however, the same is not being taken to its logical end.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we call upon the respondents to file a fresh affidavit by 12th December 2023 stating therein the steps taken by the respective Municipal Corporations/Councils and the Government authorities not only to ensure compliance of the judgment dated 30 th January 2017, but also to implement the provisions of the Act of 1995 in its letter and spirit. While filing these affidavits, the respondents shall disclose the number of actions taken by the respective Municipal Corporations/Councils, including the criminal actions not only in terms of the Act of 1995, but also in terms of any

6-PIL.155.2011

other law. The complete figures shall be disclosed in these affidavits and the action taken in past 6 (six) months.

7. Stand over to 19th December 2023.

     (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)                    (CHIEF JUSTICE)