2018 (3) TMI 1654 - HC - Indian Laws

Erection of hoardings - petitioner is aggrieved by the erection of the hoarding since the six alleged hoardings are blocking the air and ventilation of the hotel and according to the petitioner the said hoarding attempted to be erected in violation of the local laws and CRZ norms. Whether such hoardings warrant a permission from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) as a Planning Authority and of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority? Held that - Undisputably the said land is not a part of the Airport but is situated outside the Airport. The said land has been put to use for the purposes of parking. It is the AAI which has invited RFP and initiated the tender process for availing concessionaire rights for erection of hoardings. The said land therefore belongs to AAI and we are not able to accede to the contention of Dr. Sathe that the said land is owned by the Union of India. The AAI is statutory Corporation and is an independent entity capable of holding property in its own name and in the Scheme of the enactment the Central Government only exercises control over the AAI but the said Authority is distinct from the Union of India (UOI). Whether the local laws could be invoked to regulate the procedure for erection of hoardings and whether permission of the Local Authority i.e. MCGM is imperative? - Held that - The AAI as a commercial venture has undertaken the work of allotment of concessionaire right in favour of the advertisers and in order to achieve the best commercial interest and not for indulging into any activity at the Airport and its civil enclaves. However such right will not absolve the Authority from falling in line with the local laws enacted and governing the field. The Airports Authority of India Act 1994 has been enacted by the Parliament by invoking the Entry 29 and 30 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Once we have arrived at a conclusion that the land on which the hoardings are erected has to abide by the local laws then all the parameters laid down in the policy of the MCGM flowing from Section 328 and 328A of the MMC Act 1888 must fall in line. Any erection of hoardings without prior permission of the MCGM is thus violative of the provisions of MMC Act and needs no protection and rather such structures used for the erection of hoardings needs to be removed. As per the CRZ Notification 1991 the Coastal States and Union Territories were required to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) identifying and classifying the CRZ areas in accordance with the guidelines given in the CRZ Notification and as per paragraph 3 (ii) of the CRZ Notification 1991 all development activities within the CRZ area have to be regulated within the framework of such approved plan which includes development or construction activities in different categories. The hoarding sites on the land bearing CTS No. 940 and 958/1 and 958/2 according to the CRZ are situated in CRZ II as per Coastal Zone Management Plan of Greater Mumbai. The erection of hoardings is development activity on land which involves the construction by means of M.S. Angles and girders excavation and constructing the foundation work for laying foundation for the hoardings - In such circumstances since the said piece and parcel of land falls in CRZ area any activity or process of development/construction attracts the provision of CRZ Notification 2011 and any development taking place without seeking permission from the Competent Authority must face the consequences. The number of vehicles are on the rise day by day and regulation of such vehicular traffic is a primary concern for any local authority. The distraction in the form of hoardings which may pose danger to such free flow of traffic therefore needs to be regulated so that their placement their sizes the illumination and the material displayed thereon is put to check by the local authorities since the safety of public at large should be the primary goal - It is no doubt true that hoardings also earn revenue and in the present case the revenue for the AAI and though it is commercial venture it would not superimpose the larger public interest. The claim of a particular public Authority in attempt of its commercial venture cannot over ride and it must be subservient to the larger public interest. Erection of hoardings can be permitted subject to regulation as long as the said hoardings do not endanger the public safety. The hoardings which are attempted to be erected by AAI are exposed to the public view and pose a disturbance to the safe traffic movement as per the learned petitioner who has filed the PIL - It is for the authority to also consider whether the alleged hoardings attract the provisions of the Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 1995 since it is alleged that they are obstructing the view of the statues of Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Mahatma Gandhi. The duty to obtain necessary permission in the light of the conferment of advertising rights concession of developing and operating the advertisement board in the estate at Juhu Airport has been placed on the advertiser and the advertiser has failed to obtain such necessary permissions. Resultantly the said hoardings erected by M/s. Guju Ads are unauthorized and are liable to be removed forthwith. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of hoardings erected by M/s. Guju Ads Pvt. Ltd. on land owned by the Airports Authority of India (AAI).
2. Requirement of permissions from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) for erecting hoardings.
3. Compliance with local laws and regulations, including the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.
4. Public safety and obstruction concerns related to the hoardings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Hoardings Erected by M/s. Guju Ads Pvt. Ltd.:
The judgment addresses the legality of hoardings erected by M/s. Guju Ads Pvt. Ltd. on land owned by the AAI. The court noted that the land in question, though owned by the AAI, is situated outside the airport and is used for parking purposes. The AAI had invited tenders for advertising rights on this land. However, the court concluded that the AAI, being a statutory corporation, is distinct from the Union of India and its properties are not exempt from local laws. The court rejected the argument that the land is Union property and thus immune from local regulations.

2. Requirement of Permissions from MCGM and MCZMA:
The court emphasized that any development or erection of hoardings on land within the jurisdiction of the MCGM requires permission from the MCGM and MCZMA. The statutory scheme under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, mandates that such permissions are necessary to ensure systematic and planned development. The court highlighted that the AAI or its concessionaire must obtain these permissions before erecting any hoardings.

3. Compliance with Local Laws and Regulations:
The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, particularly Sections 328 and 328A, which regulate the erection of sky-signs and advertisements. The court noted that these provisions are regulatory and not restrictive, aiming to prevent hazardous and obstructive structures. The court also referred to the policy guidelines framed by the MCGM, which require permissions for erecting hoardings on public and private lands, including those owned by other public authorities like the AAI. The court found that M/s. Guju Ads Pvt. Ltd. had not obtained the necessary permissions from the MCGM and MCZMA, rendering the hoardings unauthorized.

4. Public Safety and Obstruction Concerns:
The court addressed the public safety concerns raised in the petitions, noting that the hoardings could pose a danger to pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The court emphasized the importance of regulating such structures to ensure they do not obstruct the smooth flow of traffic or impede public safety. The court directed the relevant authorities to examine whether the hoardings obstruct the view of important landmarks and statues, such as those of Mahatma Gandhi and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and to take appropriate action.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the hoardings erected by M/s. Guju Ads Pvt. Ltd. on land owned by the AAI were unauthorized due to the lack of necessary permissions from the MCGM and MCZMA. The court directed the AAI to ensure the removal of the hoardings and structures within seven days, failing which the MCGM would proceed to remove them. The court also emphasized the need for the AAI to align its advertising policies with those of the MCGM to ensure public safety and compliance with local laws. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and regulatory frameworks to maintain orderly and safe urban development.