Sarita Saxena vs.south Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc) & Anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1221560
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnFeb-19-2019
AppellantSarita Saxena
RespondentSouth Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc) & Anr.
Excerpt:
+ * in the high court of delhi at new delhi date of decision:19. h february, 2019 % lpa1182017, cm nos. 6015/2017 & 6017/2017 sarita saxena ..... appellant through: mr. anand mishra, adv. with mr. hemant kumar, ms. vandita and ms. sakhi jain, advs. versus south delhi municipal corporation (sdmc) & anr. through: mr. sanjay poddar, sr. adv. with ........ respondents mr. mukesh gupta, mr. sharaf, mr. govind kumar, mr. chirag sharma, mr. pratish goel and mr. sandeep bajaj, advs. for sdmc lpa3322017, cm no.16850/2017 m/s shashvat advertising pvt ltd through: mr. syed anis nizami, adv. ..... appellant versus south delhi municipal corporation & anr through: mr. sanjay poddar, sr. adv. with ........ respondents mr. sandeep bajaj, mr. sharaf, mr. govind kumar, mr. chirag sharma and mr. pratish goel, advs. for sdmc mr. ajjay aroraa and mr. kapil dutta, advs. for ndmc. and + lpa1182017 and connected matter. page 1 of 4 coram: hon'ble the chief justice hon'ble mr. justice v. kameswar rao v. kameswar rao, j.(oral) cm no.6015/2017 (for delay) in lpa1182017 this is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 89 days delay in filing the appeal. for the reasons stated in the application delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is condoned. application stands disposed of. lpa1182017 lpa3322017 1. these two appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 16th september, 2016 passed in w.p.(c) 6181/2015 (lpa1182017) and order dated 14th february, 2017 passed in w.p.(c) 11177/2015 (lpa3322017). in lpa no.118/2017, the impugned order was passed in a batch of writ petitions (the lead matter being pareena estate v. sdmc) including the writ petition filed by the appellant herein whereby the petitions have been disposed of. the challenge before the learned single judge was to the action of the sdmc removing / damaging advertisements for which noc / permission was granted. in w.p.(c) 6181/2015 two questions were posed by the learned single judge for his consideration, the same are as follows: lpa1182017 and connected matter. page 2 of 4 “a. whether the noc / permission once granted by the municipality for outdoor advertising at a particular site is for a particular duration only or for perpetuity, capable of being withdrawn / revoked only in the event of violation of the terms of the noc / permission or of the oap being established?. b. what is the remedy, if any, of the person / advertiser to whom noc / permission has been granted by the allegation of the municipality of violation by such person / advertiser of the terms of the noc / permission and / or of the oap?.” the municipality, against 2. on issue no.(a) above, learned single judge has held that the noc / permission granted by the sdmc for exhibiting advertisements is for one year only and not for a period of 5 years, which was granted in favour of the appellants herein.3. it was based on the judgment in pareena estate v. south delhi municipal corporation, w.p.(c) 6105/2015 the w.p.(c) 11177/2015 was dismissed which judgment is the subject matter of lpa3322017.4. there is no dispute that the appellants herein have completed more than 3 years and less than 5 years of the contractual period when the impugned action was taken. our attention has been drawn by mr. sanjay poddar, learned sr. counsel appearing for the respondent sdmc to a new outdoor policy to contend that the same has been framed by the municipal corporations, and the same has been approved by the lpa1182017 and connected matter. page 3 of 4 supreme court, which is called as “outdoor advertising policy 2017”. according to him, in terms of the said policy, the period for which the contract for advertising can be given is three years. if that be so and the fact that the appellants herein have already executed contracts of advertisement for a period beyond three years, no order for their continuance can in any case be passed by this court. in fact, the appeals have become infructuous as no relief can be granted to the appellants herein. the appeals are dismissed as infructuous. cm no.6015/2017 in lpa1182017 cm no.16850/2017 in lpa3322017 dismissed as infructuous. v. kameswar rao, j february19 2019/jg chief justice lpa1182017 and connected matter. page 4 of 4
Judgment:

+ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:

19. h February, 2019 % LPA1182017, CM Nos. 6015/2017 & 6017/2017 SARITA SAXENA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv. with Mr. Hemant Kumar, Ms. Vandita and Ms. Sakhi Jain, Advs. versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (SDMC) & ANR. Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with ........ RESPONDENTS

Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Mr. Sharaf, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Chirag Sharma, Mr. Pratish Goel and Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advs. for SDMC LPA3322017, CM No.16850/2017 M/S SHASHVAT ADVERTISING PVT LTD Through: Mr. Syed Anis Nizami, Adv. ..... Appellant Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with ........ RESPONDENTS

Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Sharaf, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Chirag Sharma and Mr. Pratish Goel, Advs. for SDMC Mr. Ajjay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for NDMC. AND + LPA1182017 and connected matter. Page 1 of 4 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

(ORAL) CM No.6015/2017 (for delay) in LPA1182017 This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 89 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. LPA1182017 LPA3322017 1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 16th September, 2016 passed in W.P.(C) 6181/2015 (LPA1182017) and Order dated 14th February, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) 11177/2015 (LPA3322017). In LPA No.118/2017, the impugned order was passed in a batch of writ petitions (the lead matter being Pareena Estate v. SDMC) including the writ petition filed by the appellant herein whereby the petitions have been disposed of. The challenge before the learned Single Judge was to the action of the SDMC removing / damaging advertisements for which NOC / permission was granted. In W.P.(C) 6181/2015 two questions were posed by the learned Single Judge for his consideration, the same are as follows: LPA1182017 and connected matter. Page 2 of 4 “A. Whether the NOC / permission once granted by the municipality for outdoor advertising at a particular site is for a particular duration only or for perpetuity, capable of being withdrawn / revoked only in the event of violation of the terms of the NOC / permission or of the OAP being established?. B. What is the remedy, if any, of the person / advertiser to whom NOC / permission has been granted by the allegation of the municipality of violation by such person / advertiser of the terms of the NOC / permission and / or of the OAP?.” the municipality, against 2. On issue No.(A) above, learned Single Judge has held that the NOC / permission granted by the SDMC for exhibiting advertisements is for one year only and not for a period of 5 years, which was granted in favour of the appellants herein.

3. It was based on the judgment in Pareena Estate v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, W.P.(C) 6105/2015 the W.P.(C) 11177/2015 was dismissed which Judgment is the subject matter of LPA3322017.

4. There is no dispute that the appellants herein have completed more than 3 years and less than 5 years of the contractual period when the impugned action was taken. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent SDMC to a new outdoor policy to contend that the same has been framed by the Municipal Corporations, and the same has been approved by the LPA1182017 and connected matter. Page 3 of 4 Supreme Court, which is called as “Outdoor Advertising Policy 2017”. According to him, in terms of the said policy, the period for which the contract for advertising can be given is three years. If that be so and the fact that the appellants herein have already executed contracts of advertisement for a period beyond three years, no order for their continuance can in any case be passed by this court. In fact, the appeals have become infructuous as no relief can be granted to the appellants herein. The appeals are dismissed as infructuous. CM No.6015/2017 in LPA1182017 CM No.16850/2017 in LPA3322017 Dismissed as infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J FEBRUARY19 2019/jg CHIEF JUSTICE LPA1182017 and connected matter. Page 4 of 4