The Karnataka High Court has stayed the August 6, 2018 resolution of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike banning advertisements for a period of one year, and several adjudications orders passed by the BBMP’s zonal joint commissioner declaring that a large number of hoardings were put up illegally.
Justice G. Narendar passed the interim order on July 12 on a batch of petitions filed by several advertising agencies and their association.
Interestingly, another single judge bench, in its February 6, 2019 order on the same batch of petitions, had quashed the BBMP’s August 6, 2018 resolution. This order was stayed by a division bench on February 7 on an appeal by the BBMP.
“Prima facie, the ban appears to be contrary to the statutory provisions themselves. The provisions of Section 423 authorise the ban, prohibition or regulation of advertisements only by way of by-laws. The resolution does not partake the nature of a by-law. In that view of the matter and in the light of the various discussions made above, prima facie, the resolution appears to be contrary to not only the statutory provision, but also the rights guaranteed to the parties under the Constitution. Hence, there shall be an interim stay of the operation of the resolution dated August 6, 2018,” Justice Narendar observed.
On adjudication orders passed by the joint commissioners terming several advertisement hoardings as illegal after hearing the views of the owners of such hoardings, Justice Narendar held that “apparently, no notice of any violation or breach was caused upon the aggrieved persons.”
“Reliance on the public notice and an attempt to convince the court to read it as a notice under Section 138 [of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act] appears to be highly misplaced. On perusal of the said alleged public notice, the same is more in the nature of an appeal to the public and to the persons carrying on business to place documents. It is settled law that when a statute mandates a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the authorities are bound to act and execute in that manner only. The adjudication orders, prima facie, appear to be contrary to the settled position of law,” the court observed in its July 12 order.
