Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 924 (10 December 1997)
KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE
WP (C) 9300/82, 939/96, & 95/97, & IA 7-8/11-13 in WP (C) 13029/85 O R
D E R IA No. 11 The application stands disposed of.
12 This application is made by Delhi Outdoor Advertisers Association. The
prayer in the application is for clarification/modification of the order dated November 20, 1997 in so far as it relates to the
direction given therein for the removal of all hoardings which are on
road-sides and which are a disturbance to safe traffic movement. Having heard Shri
G.Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel for the applicant, and the learned amicus
curiae, we are satisfied that this application must be rejected. We have
perused the notice published by the Commissioner of M.C.D. warning all
advertisers/owners of hoardings in Delhi to remove such hoardings and also the notices issued thereafter as
result of non-compliance of the notice by some persons. We are satisfied that
the steps taken are in the proper direction to identify and remove these
hoardings. Shri G.Ramaswamy submitted the order enables the authorities to act
arbitrarily and to remove any hoarding at their will which should not correct.
The order made by this Court on November 20, 1997, which was duly publicised has directed in the order itself
publicity through the electronic media and is obviously well-known to every
one. The applicants belong to a category who would undoubtedly be aware of the
order and its requirement. Even thereafter, a notice requiring compliance was
published in the newspapers and in addition, in case of continuing default,
individual notices were issued some of some of which were shown to us by the
learned counsel. There is, thus, sufficient notice to every person and no
further notice of the kind suggested by Shri Ramaswamy is required to any
advertiser/owner of the hoardings. The order dated November 20, 1997 is quite clear and has also been correctly understood by
the authorities and all concerned. It directs the authourities to `remove all
hoardings which are on road-sides and which are hazardous and a disturbance to
safe traffic movement'. There is ambiguity in the order. It is obvious that
every hoarding, other than traffic signs and road signs on the road-sides have
to be removed irrespective of its kind;
hoarding irrespective of whether it is on the road- side of not which is
hazardous and a disturbance to safe traffic movement so as to adversely affect
free and safe flow of traffic is required to be identified by the authorities
and promptly which is a disturbance to safe traffic movement has to be a
hoarding visible to the traffic on the road. No other detail or further
guideline is required for appreciating this order and its implementation.
though the order dated 20.11.1997 was explicit and very clear, yet these
further observations are made to leave on one in any doubt of the content and
requirement of out order.
reiterate the direction given in our order dated November 20, 1997 that the order made by us even in respect of the hoardings
is required to be required to be implemented notwithstanding any other or
directions including stay orders/injunctions granted by any authority, court or
tribunal to the contrary.
Application is, therefore, disposed of.