Delhi High Court
Sarita Saxena vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 19 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th February, 2019
+ LPA 118/2017, CM Nos. 6015/2017 & 6017/2017
SARITA SAXENA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv. with
Mr. Hemant Kumar, Ms. Vandita and
Ms. Sakhi Jain, Advs.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
(SDMC) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Mr. Sharaf,
Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Chirag
Sharma, Mr. Pratish Goel and
Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advs. for SDMC
AND
+ LPA 332/2017, CM No. 16850/2017
M/S SHASHVAT ADVERTISING PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Syed Anis Nizami, Adv.
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Sharaf,
Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Chirag
Sharma and Mr. Pratish Goel, Advs.
for SDMC
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil Dutta,
Advs. for NDMC.
LPA 118/2017 and connected matter. Page 1 of 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 6015/2017 (for delay) in LPA 118/2017
This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of
89 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the
application delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
LPA 118/2017
LPA 332/2017
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging
the order dated 16th September, 2016 passed in W.P.(C) 6181/2015
(LPA 118/2017) and Order dated 14th February, 2017 passed in W.P.(C)
11177/2015 (LPA 332/2017). In LPA No. 118/2017, the impugned order
was passed in a batch of writ petitions (the lead matter being Pareena
Estate v. SDMC) including the writ petition filed by the appellant herein
whereby the petitions have been disposed of. The challenge before the
learned Single Judge was to the action of the SDMC removing /
damaging advertisements for which NOC / permission was granted. In
W.P.(C) 6181/2015 two questions were posed by the learned Single
Judge for his consideration, the same are as follows:
"A. Whether the NOC / permission once granted by
the municipality for outdoor advertising at a
particular site is for a particular duration only or
for perpetuity, capable of being withdrawn /
revoked only in the event of violation of the terms
of the NOC / permission or of the OAP being
established?
B. What is the remedy, if any, of the person /
advertiser to whom NOC / permission has been
granted by the municipality, against the
allegation of the municipality of violation by such
person / advertiser of the terms of the NOC /
permission and / or of the OAP?"
2. On issue No. (A) above, learned Single Judge has held that the
NOC / permission granted by the SDMC for exhibiting advertisements is
for one year only and not for a period of 5 years, which was granted in
favour of the appellants herein.
3. It was based on the judgment in Pareena Estate v. South Delhi
Municipal Corporation, W.P.(C) 6105/2015 the W.P.(C) 11177/2015
was dismissed which Judgment is the subject matter of LPA 332/2017.
4. There is no dispute that the appellants herein have completed more
than 3 years and less than 5 years of the contractual period when the
impugned action was taken. Our attention has been drawn by
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent
SDMC to a new outdoor policy to contend that the same has been framed
by the Municipal Corporations, and the same has been approved by the
Supreme Court, which is called as "Outdoor Advertising Policy 2017".
According to him, in terms of the said policy, the period for which the
contract for advertising can be given is three years. If that be so and the
fact that the appellants herein have already executed contracts of
advertisement for a period beyond three years, no order for their
continuance can in any case be passed by this court. In fact, the appeals
have become infructuous as no relief can be granted to the appellants
herein. The appeals are dismissed as infructuous.
CM No. 6015/2017 in LPA 118/2017
CM No. 16850/2017 in LPA 332/2017
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 19, 2019/jg
