Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
M/S SKYCOM & ANR. ..... Petitioners
COMMISSIONER, & ORS. ..... Respondents
HON’BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Divya Prakash Pande, Standing Counsel for
SDMC (through VC)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. W.P. (C) 2009/2021 & CM APPLN. 5880/2021 (stay)
2. Petitioner seeks a mandamus, thereby respondents to grant/renew permission to the petitioner to display advertisements by way of building wraps on various malls in terms of his application dated 03.01.2021. 2021:DHC:556 W.P. (C) 2009/2021
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application is not being received as the application has been filed under Rule 13 (4) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Tax for Advertisement (other than advertisement published in newspapers) Bye Laws 1996. He submits that the requisite advertisement fee of Rs. 25/- has been paid alongwith the application.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent on advance notice submits that the said application could not be considered as the same is not in the prescribed form and does not comply with the requirements of law. He submits that Rs. 25/- is the application fee and not the advertisement fee. He, however, submits that Respondents shall, without prejudice, decide the application within three days and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.
5. Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to decide the application of the petitioner within three days and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.
6. It is clarified that this would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
7. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 16, 2021 ‘rs’