Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th February, 2019
SARITA SAXENA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv. with Mr. Hemant Kumar, Ms. Vandita and
Ms. Sakhi Jain, Advs.
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Mr. Sharaf, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Chirag Sharma, Mr. Pratish Goel and
Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advs. for SDMC AND
M/S SHASHVAT ADVERTISING PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Syed Anis Nizami, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with 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.
2019:DHC:1155-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 6015/2017 (for delay) in LPA 118/2017 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.
JUDGMENT
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 16th September, 2016 passed in W.P.(C) 6181/2015 (LPA 118/2017) and Order dated 14th February, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) 11177/2015 (LPA 332/2017). 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:
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 LPA 332/2017.
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 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 LPA 118/2017 CM No. 16850/2017 in LPA 332/2017 Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 19, 2019