Selvel Media Services P.Ltd. & v. Mcd & Ors

O R D E R % 01.04.2008

¶1The petitioner No. 1 is an advertising company and has filed the present writ petition for direction to respondent-MCD to grant a licence under the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. It is the case of the petitioner that applications filed by the petitioner No. 1 are pending consideration with MCD.

¶2Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-Delhi Police in their counter affidavit has referred to order dated 20th November, 1997 passed by the Supreme Court whereby directions were given to the civic authorities including DDA, Railways, police and transport authorities to remove all hoardings, which are on the road side and are hazardous and disturb smooth and safe traffic movement. Reference in the counter affidavit is also made to another order dated 16th April, 2001 passed by the Supreme Court. Section 116(4) of the Motor Vehicles' Act, 1988 is also referred to. It is pointed out that a similar provision has been made in Delhi Control of Erection and Exhibition of Advertisement Devices Regulations, 1980, framed under Section 28 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.

¶3It is stated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit that a policy was framed in 2004 with regard to display of advertisements. It is further stated that proposals received are considered and finalized strictly as per the approved policy.

¶4It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Supreme Court has issued certain directions and an outdoor advertising policy was finalized on 10th September, 2007. It is stated that the said policy is available on the website of MCD.

¶5It is open to the petitioners to move a representation before the MCD for examination of the applications filed by them or, if required, file fresh applications under new policy. Representation or applications, as the case may be, will be considered by the MCD in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court and the new policy framed by the MCD. Similarly, in case the petitioner is required to move any application under Delhi Control of Erection and Exhibition of Advertisement Devices Regulations, 1980, steps in this regard will be taken. In case petitioner is not entitled to grant of a licence, a speaking order will be passed and reasons for rejecting the application will be communicated to the petitioner.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

APRIL 01, 2008

VKR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12209-10/2006 SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES P.LTD. & ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Pradeep Dewan & Mr. R.B. Samaiyar, Advocates. versus MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Arora,Advocate for MCD. Mr. J.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA