M/S. Almass India v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 "gsr"/bs..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 16th September, 2016 + W.P.(C) No.6105/2015, CM No.11103/2015 (for stay) & CM No.11104/2015 (for direction). M/S PAREENA ESTATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Mishra & Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advs. Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. AND + W.P.(C) No.6181/2015 & CM No.11237/2015 (for stay). MRS. SARITA SAXENA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Mishra & Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advs. Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (SDMC) & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. for R-1. AND + W.P.(C) No.6186/2015, CM No.11240/2015 (for stay), CM No.11241/2015 (for direction) & CM No.11242/2015 (for exemption). MR. RIPUDAMAN HARYAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Mishra & Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advs. Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (SDMC) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. AND + W.P.(C) No.6276/2015, CM No.11407/2015 (for stay) and CM No.11408/2015 (for direction). M/S CONSECIENT INFRASTRUCTURE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv. Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. for SDMC AND + W.P.(C) 5983/2015 & CMs No.10849/2015 (for stay) & 10850/2015 (for direction) SAHIL CHOPRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Anand Mishra and Mr. Om Swaroop, Advs. Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sarsha Peechara, Adv. for SDMC. AND + W.P.(C) 5985/2015 & CMs No.10854/2015 (for stay) & 10855/2015 (for direction) SANJAY GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Anand Mishra and Mr. Om Swaroop, Advs. Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sarsha Peechara, Adv. for SDMC. AND + W.P.(C) 5987/2015 & CMs No.10859/2015 (for stay) & 10860/2015 (for direction) TARANJEET SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Anand Mishra and Mr. Om Swaroop, Advs. Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sarsha Peechara, Adv. for SDMC. AND + W.P.(C) 5988/2015 & CMs No.10862/2015 (for stay) & 10863/2015 (for direction) M/S. ALMASS INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Anand Mishra and Mr. Om Swaroop, Advs. Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR ......Respondents Through: Mr. Sarsha Peechara, Adv. for SDMC. Mr. Ajay Arora and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for MCD. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. All these petitions entail common questions of law and hence are taken up together for decision. 2. This Court in Sports and Leisure Apparel Ltd. Vs. MCD AIR 2015 Del 15 held that various municipalities constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (MCD Act) are not authorized by the provisions of the MCD Act to levy any charges, whether by way of licence fee for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) / permission for outdoor advertising or by way of damages for outdoor advertising without such NOC / permission. It was further held that Section 142 of the MCD Act only provides for levy of tax on display to public view of advertisement and calculated at the rates not exceeding those specified in the Fifth Schedule of the MCD Act and the charges by way of licence fee or damages were not claimed in exercise of the said power. 3. LPA No.78/2015 preferred against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed in limine vide judgment dated 18th February, 2015. 4. Though a special leave petition is informed to have been preferred to the Supreme Court against the judgments aforesaid but there is no interim order therein of stay of operation of the judgments of this Court. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners in these writ petitions that the respondent South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC), feeling frustrated by denial of collection of such charges by way of licence fee and/or damages for outdoor advertising as it was earlier collecting/demanding without any authority, has illegally started withdrawing the NOC