Full Text
Date of Decision: 23rd December, 2025
SKYCOM AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishan, Sr. Adv.
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC-MCD
Mr. Charul Sarin, Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocates for R-4 (M:9818770156)
Ms. Nandini Gore, Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Mr. Swati Bhardwaj, Advocates for R-5 and 6
(M:9013546728)
JUDGMENT
1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 26th November, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) 5301/2019 titled as “M/S Skycom and Anr. Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.”.
2. It is to be noted that vide the said order dated 26th November, 2025, this Court by relying upon an earlier interim order passed by this Court dated 20th May, 2019, in W.P.(C) 5301/2019, had passed directions, in the following manner: “xxx xxx xxx
11. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, it is directed that the petitioners shall submit an application with the MCD, within a period of two working days from today, seeking permission for display of advertisements inside DLF Avenue, Saket, New Delhi.
12. Upon the receipt of the said application by the MCD from the petitioners with respect to display of advertisements as aforesaid, the MCD shall proceed to grant permission to the petitioners in terms of the order dated 20th May, 2019, passed by this Court.
13. The MCD shall also be at liberty to inspect the area in question, in order to assess the area over which the petitioners propose to display the advertisements.
14. Upon inspection, the MCD shall make a fresh calculation as per the area in question, and intimate the same to the petitioners.
15. The petitioners, on the basis of the calculation as provided by the MCD, shall deposit the Bank Guarantee with the MCD, in terms of the order dated 20th
16. This Court takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the advertisements are to be displayed with effect from 01st December, 2025.
17. Accordingly, let the needful be done by the MCD as well as the petitioners before the said date, i.e., 01st December, 2025.
18. The aforesaid directions have been passed, and shall be complied by the parties, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.
19. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of.”
3. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that this Court had clearly directed that the petitioner herein, shall submit an application with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) within a period of two days, seeking permission for display of advertisements inside DLF Avenue Mall, Saket, New Delhi. Further, the MCD was directed to grant permission to the petitioners in terms of the earlier interim order dated 20th May, 2019.
4. However, for the purposes of assessing the area where the petitioners proposed to display the advertisement, and for making calculation as regards the amount which the petitioners were required to deposit by way bank guarantee, it was directed that the MCD shall be at liberty to inspect the area in question.
5. The present contempt petition has been filed as the MCD has not complied with the said orders and instead of granting permission to the petitioners in terms of the interim orders dated 20th May, 2019 and 26th November, 2025, as was directed by this Court, the MCD issued a letter dated 08th December, 2025, which is reproduced as under:
6. Perusal of the aforesaid letter issued by the MCD reveals that the MCD proceeded on the ground that no permission could be granted to the petitioners herein, as it is one of the mandatory conditions that an applicant must be registered as an „Advertiser‟ in the panel of MCD. There were certain other related issues that have also been raised by the MCD in the aforesaid letter dated 08th December, 2025, on account of which the present contempt petition has come to be filed.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the earlier interim order dated 20th May, 2019 was passed, the petitioner did not have any registration as a registered advertiser with the MCD. It is submitted that the petitioners obtained registration only subsequently on 03rd July, 2019, which was valid in the first instance till 31st March, 2020 and subsequently, extended till 31st March, 2021. Thus, it is the categorical case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been displaying advertisements in the mall in question in terms of the order dated 20th May, 2019, uninterruptedly and regularly since then.
8. Thus, it is manifest that despite lapse of registration of the petitioner as a registered advertiser of the MCD on 31st March, 2021, the petitioner herein has been allowed to continue to display advertisements inside the malls for which permission was so granted, i.e., Select City Walk Saket and DLF Promenade Vasant Kunj, uninterruptedly and regularly.
9. This Court takes note of the submission on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent-MCD, that the officials of the MCD are continuously regulating the display of advertisements by the petitioner inside the malls, viz. Select City Walk, Saket and DLF Promenade, Vasant Kunj.
10. The main contention as raised on behalf of the MCD is that the petitioner as of today is not registered as a registered advertiser.
11. This Court also takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the MCD that as per the scheme of the Statute, i.e., Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act”) as well as the Outdoor Advertisement Policy, an applicant for display of advertisements, is required to be a registered advertiser.
12. There is no quarrel as far as the said submission of respondent-MCD is concerned. The scheme of the Act and the Outdoor Advertisement Policy is very clear to the effect that any party, who intends to display advertisement as outdoor advertisement, is required to not only seek permission from the MCD, but also has to be a registered advertiser with the MCD. However, it is to be noted that the core issue which has been raised by the petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.(C) 5301/2019 pending before this Court, is that the petitioners are displaying advertisements inside a mall, therefore, the petitioners are not required to be registered advertiser or seek any permission from the MCD, as the same does not constitute outdoor advertisement, and not amenable to the jurisdiction of the MCD.
13. The said issues, as raised by the petitioner, are pending in the writ petition, W.P.(C) 5301/2019 titled as “M/S Skycom and Anr. Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.”. Therefore, on account of the said issues having been raised by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate that, as an interim measure, on account of the earlier interim order dated 20th May, 2019 which was passed in favour of the petitioner, the said mandatory requirement of a registered advertiser, would not be insisted upon by the MCD for the time being, subject to the outcome of the aforesaid writ petition, where the said issues are pending adjudication.
14. This court notes that vide order dated 20th May, 2019, the Predecessor Bench of this Court has already allowed the petitioners to display advertisements inside Select City Walk, Saket and DLF Promenade, Vasant Kunj, which advertisements are displayed by the petitioners even as on date.
15. As noted earlier, the registration of the petitioners as an advertiser of the MCD has already expired on 31st March, 2021, and the petitioners have been allowed to display the advertisements without any interference or disturbance from the MCD.
16. Though learned counsel for the MCD has attempted to justify the action of the MCD and has brought forth differentiation on the ground that at the time of passing of interim order dated 20th May, 2019, the application of the petitioner for registration was pending, however, considering the pendency of the adjudication of the said issues in the aforesaid writ petition, in considered view of the Court, this aspect may not be insisted upon by the MCD for the time being, however, purely as an interim measure.
17. It is to be noted that vide order dated 26th November, 2025, this Court has already directed the MCD to pass requisite order for allowing the petitioners to display advertisements inside DLF Avenue Mall, Saket, New Delhi, in terms of the earlier interim order dated 20th May, 2019.
18. Accordingly, it is deemed expedient that a joint inspection be carried out by the MCD in the presence of the authorized representatives of the petitioners.
19. Accordingly, a joint inspection shall be carried out by the MCD on 26th December, 2025 at 11:00 AM.
20. During inspection, concerned officials of the MCD shall assess the area over which the petitioners propose to display the advertisements.
21. Upon inspection, the MCD shall make a fresh calculation as per the area in question and communicate the same to the petitioners.
22. The petitioners on the basis of the calculation, as provided by the MCD, shall deposit the bank guarantee to the MCD in terms of the earlier order dated 20th
23. After inspection by the MCD, the petitioners shall be permitted to display the advertisement forthwith, subject to the deposit of bank guarantee of the amount in terms of the amount indicated by the MCD. The requisite bank guarantee shall be deposited by the petitioners within a period of one week with the MCD, after communication to the petitioners.
24. Needless to state that in case the petitioners do not comply with the directions passed by this Court and do not deposit the requisite bank guarantee, the MCD shall be at liberty to take action, in accordance with law.
25. It is clarified that this order will not be treated as a precedent for other advertisers to seek permission to display advertisement inside a Mall.
26. It is further clarified that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the present case, in view of the earlier order dated 20th May, 2019 passed by this Court.
27. It is further directed that the MCD will continue to regulate the display of advertisements by the petitioners, so that the safety and security of the public at large is maintained.
28. Learned counsel appearing for DLF Avenue Mall, Saket, New Delhi is present in Court and submits that they have a private arrangement with the petitioners and have no objection if the advertisements are displayed by the petitioners. The aforesaid statement is taken note of.
29. Mere fact that the petitioners are allowed to display advertisements inside the DLF Avenue Mall, Saket, New Delhi, by virtue of this order, the same shall not be construed in any manner, that the statutory requirements as indicated in the Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2017, DMC Act, 1957 and the Advertisement Bye Laws, are being violated in any manner.
30. The rights and contentions of the parties are left open, which shall be decided in the pending writ petition, W.P.(C) 5301/2019, wherein, all the issues as raised by the petitioners with regard to display of advertisements inside a mall and the jurisdiction of the MCD, are under consideration.
31. With the aforesaid directions, the present contempt petition is accordingly, disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 23, 2025