The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the August 6, 2018 resolution of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) banning all forms of advertisements in open spaces in the city for a period of one year.
However, the court made it clear that quashing of the resolution is ‘not to be construed so as to fetter the rights of the BBMP to initiate action against illegal advertisement, as would be permissible under the existing law as provided under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, and the Advertisement By-laws 2006’.
Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order while hearing a batch of petitions filed by various advertising agencies and their association questioning the legality of the resolution passed by the BBMP.
Yet to decide
But the court yet to consider the pleas of the advertising agencies seeking a declaration that advertisement hoardings are legal and valid, and that the petitioners possessed deemed licences; to quash the BBMP’s communications that petitioner advertising agencies had violated the advertisement by-laws and that their hoardings are illegal; and for a direction to the BBMP not to dismantle or remove hoardings.
PIL proceedings a rider
“This court merely examined the the rights of the petitioners as individual litigants vis-a-vis the existing legal framework, and it would be relevant to observe that the aspects relating to regulation of unauthorised and illegal advertisement, pending before the division bench in the public interest litigations, operates in a different sphere. Nevertheless, it would be appropriate to observe that the aspects being considered by the division bench in WP No-57990/2017 may have a bearing on the rights of the petitioners when sought for the exercised,” Justice Yadav said in the order.
Arbitrary
Pointing out that implementing a new set of advertisement by-laws and transition from the current legal framework is one that must be resorted to without infringing the legal rights of the petitioners. the court observed that “it cannot be that the fundamental rights of the petitioners as well as the rights that flow from the statute and the existing advertisement by-law could be kept in abeyance till new advertisement by-laws are framed and brought into force.”
Such action of keeping vested rights in abeyance in the transitional phase in the manner as resorted to herein by the BBMP would amount to arbitrary exercise of power, the court said
On the question whether there could be a prohibition of advertisement as contemplated under the existing legal framework till new advertisement by-laws are brought into force, the court observed, “All that could be said is that the existing statutory provisions and the by-laws 2006 contemplate and provide for the above legal contingency, and the respondent [BBMP] is to exercise power conferred under the Act strictly in the manner as contemplated and not as exercised herein.”
