Full Text
No.l1351/2015 (for direction).
SUNIL KUMAR KHULLAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv.
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. for SDMC.
21+ W.P.(C) No. 6257/2015 &CM No.l1381/2015 (for stay).
MR.SHYAMMALLIK petitioner
Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. for SDMC AND 22+ W.P.(C) No.6264/2015 &CM No.l1388/2015 (for stay).
M/S PIONEER PUBLICITY CORPORATION
Through: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Addl. Standing Counsel for R-l/EDMC.
Ms. Mini Pushkama &Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, Advs. for R-2/NrDMC.
AND
W.P.(C)No.6233/20,5. W.P.(QNo. 6257/2015, W.P.(C)No.6264/2015&
W.P.(QNo.6276/20,5 Page,of10 2015:DHC:11171 23+ W.P.(C) No.6276/2015, CM No.l1407/2015 (for stay) and CM
No.11408/2015 (for direction).
M/S CONSECIENT INFRASTRUCTURE Petitioner
Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. for SDMC.
06.07.2015 W.P.rCl No.6233/2015 j
ORDER
1. On 3 July, 2015 when all these matters came up first before the Court, the following order was passed: "3. On first call, though passover was sought on behalf of the respondents but it was enquired fi'om the counsel for the petitioners whether these petitions arethe same as W.P.(C) No.6105/2015 and other connected petitions in which judgment has been reserved on T' Jply,
2015.
4. The counsel for- the petitioners states that these matters are different and are with respect to advertisements in public places as distinct from the advertisements installed on private properties though visible from the street. With reference to W.P.(C) No.6233/2015, it was argued that the same concerns flag signs. Attention was invited to page 59 thereof, being the NOC and it is stated that the petitioner has paid upto-date licence fee. A perusal of the NOC shows that the same is with respect to flag signs atMCD authorized parking lotatB.K. Dutta W.P.fC)No.6233/2015, W.P.(C)No. 6257/2015, W.P.(C)No.6264/2015& W.P.(C)No.6276/2015 Page2ofl0 Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi (West Zone). The counsel for the petitionerhas next invited attention to the photographs at pages 60 to 62 to contend that the flag signs indeed are in the parking and not on the road, on which ground the NOC has now been withdrawn by the respondent SDMC.
5. From a perusal ofthe photographs it appears thatthe flag signs are onthe portion ofthe road demarcated forparking.
6. The matters on passover could not reach. List on 6"^ July, 2015." Today, on request ofcounsels, the petitions are taken up separately.
3. As far as W.P.(C) No.6233/2015 is concerned, the counsel for the respondent South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) has handed over photocopy of 11 photographs but ofwhich violation by installation offlagsign on the footpath is shown only in one. However on enquiry whether the parking area with respect to which the NOC to display 10 flag-signs has been given is between the footpath and the road, the counsel for the respondent SDMC states that though the Superintendent of the SDMC is present in Court but the concerned Advertising Inspector who would be in the know is notpresent.
4. It is however the admitted position that in this case no hearing before withdrawal ofthe NOC has been given to the petitioner.
5. I The counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the order dated W.P.(C)NO.6233/20IS. fV.P.(C) No. 6257/2015, W.P.(C)No.6264/2015&WiP.fC)No.6276/20I[5] Page3of10 th 29 May, 2015 of the Division Bench in LPA No.384/2015 titled M/s Outdoor Associates Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation by which SDMC was directed to inform the advertisers of deficiency in the advertisements within one day and the advertiser was given two days time to remove the deficiencies and it was directed that ifthe deficiency is removed within two days, the NOC shall continue for its duration.
6. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.6233/2015 is disposed of with adirection that ajoint inspection be carried out ofthe flag-signs with respect to which NOC was given to the petitioner, within aperiod ofone week oftoday and the deficiencies if any found be communicated in writing to the petitioner within the said time and if the petitioner does not remove the deficiency within aperiod oftwo days ofthe giving ofsuch communication, to pass a fresh reasoned order ofwithdrawal ofNOC. Needless to state that in the lightofthe above, the impugned orderdated 17*^June, 2015 stands setaside.
7. It is argued that the Joint inspection will be carried out on 8'^ July, 2015 at 1400 hours. W.P.ICl No.6257/2ni.S
8. Thispetitionhas beenfiled impugningthe orderdated 8"^June, 2015 W.P.(QNo.6233/201S, W.P.(C)No.6257/2015, W.P.(C)No.6264/2015& W.P.(QNo.6276/2015 Page4ofl0 of the respondent SDMC cancelling the contract with the petitioner with respect to Unipole SZ-66, Open Land opposite City Walk Mall, Khirki Village on the ground of the petitioner being in arrears of licence fee to the tune of Rs.33,54,982/-.
9. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner admits that there are arrears under the said contract but contends that the petitioner has applied for adjustment of the amount admittedly due under the said contract as against the refund due to the petitioner under the order dated 13^ April, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.3503/2015 titled Shyam Mallik Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and which order was in terms ofthe judgment dated 18"" April, 2015 of this bench in W.P.(C) No.4436/2010 titled Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd. Vs. MCD.
10. The counsel for the respondent SDMC controverts that the petitioner is entitled to so adjust the licence fee due with respect to the said site, which was a tender site.
11. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage does not press this petition and only seeks time of two weeks for clearing the arrears. He however, though is not able to state the amount due according to the petitioner, states that the accounts need to be reconciled. fV.P.(C) No.6233/2015, W.P.(C) No. 62S7/20I[5], W.P.(C) No.6264/2015&W.P.(C) No.6276/2015 Page 5of10
12. W.P.(C) No.6257/2015 is disposed of with an undertaking of the petitioner through advocate to pay 50% of the amount claimed of Rs.33,54,982/- to the respondent SDMC on orbefore 13^ July, 2015 and to within the said time approach the officials of the SDMC for re-conciliation ifany required ofthe accounts and to on or before 20^ July, 2015 pay either balance 50% of Rs.33,54,982/- or any other lesser amount if found due on reconciliation.
13. If the petitioner complies with each ofhis undertaking, the Unipole shall not be interfered with by the SDMC. However if the petitioner is in breach ofany ofthe parts ofthe undertaking, the respondent shall be entitled to take appropriate action with respect to Unipole. The petitioner has been made aware of the consequences of breach of undertaking given to the Court. W.P.rCl No.6264/2015
14. This petition has been filed seeking the relief ofquashing ofthe show cause notices dated 5"* June, 2015 and 9^^ June, 2015 issued by the respondent No.2 North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NrDMC) and the show cause notices dated 9^*^ June, 2015 issued by the respondent No.l East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) to the petitioner with respect to the W.P.(C)No.6233/20I[5], W.P.(C)No. 6257/2015, W.P.(C)No.6264/2015 &W.P.(C) No.6276/2015 PageOoflO Vc; / p various advertising sites with respect to which NOCs were issued to the petitioner. The petition alternatively seeks a direction to therespondents not totake any coercive action against the petitioner before passing ofany order in pursuance to the said show cause notices.
15. The counsel for the respondent No.2 NrDMC informs that the show cause notices issued to the petitioner were with respect to 13 Wall Wrap sites and on account of blatant violations of the terms on which the NOC was given i.e. ofmaking advertising installations larger than for which NOC was issued and also putting up hoardings over the rooftop and which is not permissible under the Outdoor Advertising Policy.
16. The counsel for therespondent No.1EDMC states thatthenotices are with respect to six sites and otherwise the reason for issuing the show cause was the same.
17. The counsel for the respondent No.2 NrDMC further states that action for removal ofoffending advertisement has already been taken with respect to nine out ofthe 13 sites with respect to which notices were issued. On enquiry, as to how the removal action could be taken before passing any W.P.(C)No.6233/2015, W.P.(C)No. 6257/2015, W.P.(C)No.6264/20I5& W.P.(C)No.6276/2015 Page 7of10. J order in pursuance to show cause notices, the counsel states that show cause notices are for cancellation / withdrawal of the NOC and the action of removal was in accordance with the direction contained in the order dated 6^*^ May, 2015 ofthe Division Bench ofthis Court in W.P.(C) No.3367/2015 tiled ColonelShivrajKumar Vs. SouthDelhiMunicipalCorporation.
18. The counsel for respondent No.l iEDMC, on instruction states that joint inspection of some of the six sites has already taken place and the orders in pursuance to show cause notices shall be served.
19. The counsel for the petitioner however invites attention to the order dated 29"^ May, 2015 ofthe same Division Bench in LPA No.384/2015 tiled M/s Outdoor Associates Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation by which a modality for joint inspection and opportunity for removal of the deficiencies found, before taking action in accordance with the order dated th 6 May, 2015 (supra) was devised.
20. The counsel for petitioner controverts that NrDMC has taken action with respect to nine sites, though admits that action with respect to some of the sites has taken place but is unable to state with respect to how many. He also gives up the first reliefclaimed in the petition, ofchallenge to the show cause notice. W.P.(C)No.6233/201S, W.P.(C)No. 6257/2015, W.P.(C)No.6264/2015& W.P.(C)No.6276/2015 PageSoflO
21. As far as the legality of the action if any already taken by the NrDMC, it is open to the petitioner to claim the appropriate relief with respect thereto in the appropriate proceedings and no direction with respect thereto is to be issued herein. This petition is accordingly disposed ofwith a direction to NrDMC as well as EDMC to, with respect to the sites with respect to which removal action has not been taken till now, within aperiod of 10 days from today, conduct joint inspection and iffind any deficiency therein, give opportunity to petitioner to remove the same and to pass orders in pursuance to show cause notices issued. Ifhowever such an inspection has already been carried out and opportunity to rectify been given, then the process need not be repeated. Unless the orders are in favour of the petitioner and / or the respondents agree with the petitioner removing the deficiency, further action for removal of the advertisements shall be taken only after aperiod of10 days fi-om today.
22. The petitioner to visit the office of the respondent No.l EDMC at 1100 hours on 8''' July, 2015 and office ofthe respondent NrDMC at 1400 hours on 9^^ July, 2015 in this regard. The petition isdisposed of. W.P.(C)No.6233/2015, fV.P.(C)No. 6257/2015, fV.P.(C) No.6264/2015&tV.P.fC)No.6276/2015 Page9of10 r ri, /3 W.P.ra No.6276/2015
23. The counsels state that the position in this petition is the same as in W.P.(C) No.6105/2015 titled M/s Pareena Estate Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and other connected petitions in which orders have been reserved on 1®^ July, 2015.
24. Arguments heard.
25. Judgment reserved, to be pronounced along with judgment in W.P.(C) No.6105/2015 and other connected petitions. Dasti under signature ofthe Court Master.
RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J JULY 06, 2015 'gsr' W.P.(C) No.6233/2015, WiP.(C) No. 6257/2015\w.P.(C) No.6264/2015&W.P.(C) No.6276/2015 Page 10of10