‘Relief’ for advertisers

BBMP to appeal against HC order quashing one-year ban on advertisements

February 06, 2019 09:43 pm | Updated 09:43 pm IST

The High Court order has come as a major relief to several advertisers who say the ‘ad hoc ban’ on even legal hoardings has caused massive losses to the sector. While the order may not see ‘legal’ hoardings come up, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has said it will challenge the order.

Manmohan Singh, proprietor of Popular Advertising, says the order has come after nearly seven months of struggle. “It is a relief. We hope to get the 1,400-odd legal hoardings up soon. The unilateral ban on hoardings did not differentiate between illegal and legal hoardings,” he says.

While the High Court order does not imply that their applications would be renewed, Mr. Singh believes that legal advertisers who have given their applications to the BBMP in 2016 can continue to put up hoardings as long as it conforms to eco-friendly flex guidelines. Section 443 (10) of the Karnataka Municipal Act, 1974 states that until the application is rejected, it is deemed to be permitted, he says.

The sector earns ₹300 crore annually, with much of it coming during the peak festival season of Diwali, Dasara, Christmas and New Year. “Because of the ban, there was no earnings in this season. But, we had to continue paying ground rent to the landlords while other commitments, such as loans, piled up. Companies have had to shut down and retrench staff,” he says.

Legal appeal

BBMP Commissioner N. Manjunath Prasad said that though the resolution has been quashed, the court has not yet taken up individual grievances and entitlement of the petitioners to carry on their business in terms of deemed permission.

“The court has stated that the assertions of the petitioners, (who claim) they were entitled to continue advertising, will be taken up later. However, the court has not restrained the BBMP from exercising the right of the corporation to initiate action against illegal advertisements,” he said.

“Section 443 (10) of KMC is applicable only for fresh permission and not for renewal, as stated in the judgment in a writ appeal in 2002. Hence, there is no deemed permission. We will take action if they put up hoardings,” said Mr. Prasad.

The commissioner has instructed the legal cell to challenge the order before a division bench of the High Court.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.