M/S. Sujay Advertising vs The Bbmp on 15 February, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

M/S. Sujay Advertising vs The Bbmp on 15 February, 2010

(BY SRIK.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV..,} \ ho \ THIS MFA FILED IS UNDER ORDER 43 RULE I{r} OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.11.09 PASSED ON IA NO.3-IN O.S.NO.3311/08 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIvib. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING JA NGS PILED , U/ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 CPC FOR TI. oa THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMI SSION THIS bay, | THE :

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT © This appeal is directed against the order passed 'by the Court of the IX Additional city c ivil and 'Sessions Judge.

Bangalore (C.C.H.5) on L.A.No.3 in 0.5,No.331! /2008.

2. The "appellant filed . . the. suit against the respondents "seeking - the relief | of declaration that its application for 'yetiewal of permission in respect of the schedule advertisement. hoardings is valid for a period of three years. and: further for a decree of perpetual injunction

- for restraining the respondents and its officials from dismantling ; - defacing, removing and = cutting the advertisement hoardings. In the said suit proceedings, the oy appellant sought the temporary injunction against the "respondents from removing the advertisement hoardings, etc. AEH.

-3- put up by it. The Trial Court dismissed the said I.A. Feeling aggrieved by the same, this appeal is presented.

3. Heard Sri V.B.Shivakumar. the learned "counsel ; for the appellant and Sri K.N.Puttegowda, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The copies of 'the suit documents are made available to me by Sri Shivakumar.

4. For the fest. time. the City Municipal Council, Byatarayanapura granted permission to the appellant to erect the advertisement hoardings on the private properties for the period commencing from 21.08.2006 till 31.03.2007. Meanwhile, on account "of the re-organisation of the local bodies on 01 96.2007, the Byatarayanapura City Municipal 7 Council is amaigamated in and made a part of the Bruhath Bangalore Makan agpara Palike.

5. Tt is trite that the privileges conferred by an erstwhile local body remain accrued to a party under the new FISH _4.

local body also; otherwise the rigours of the transition would be harsh.

6. Section ITI(A)(ii) of the Advertisement, "Bye-laws,_ os 2006, reads as follows:-

"Procedure for outdoor advertise ement. A. Procedure for erecting _ and. dispiaying of Commercial hoardings:-

(Po eceee ; oN fi) Any agency, individual or' eempany which undertakes. the. display. cf commercial outdoor advertisemenis. by. erecting commercial hoardings fora commercial purpose oi behalf of others shall enroll theniselves as.ar.'Agency' on payment of art enrolment Jee af not more than Rs.5,000 and not less than Rs. 2, 000 each, as the Commissioner may "decicic > for the due observance of these Bye-Laws.

Further, once every 3 years advertisers shall renew their advertisement agency as per prescribed norms. A lapse of the agericy's registration period 'shall treated as a violation which will attract late fee of Rs.1,000 per month for every continuing month of violation or part thereof.

The decision of the Commissioner BMP will be Jinal in regard to the enrollment of the agencies for _6-

8. The Trial Court's order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting re-look at the hands of the | Appellate Court. Even if it is held that the appellant is entitled to erect the advertisement hoardings, the same :

cannot be beyond 21.8.2009. To do its business "after 21.8.2009, no application for renewal of the permission is filed. Therefore, prima facie. no- injunctive relief can be granted to the appellant at the pre-trial stage. os

9. Sri K.N Puttegowda, ihe learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly subinits that if the appellant makes any application for the renewal of the permission for the period commencing on: 25.8.2009. the same would be considered. in' accordance with law. The learned counsel . submits that the consideration of the appellant's application for renewal of "permission, if filed, would depend on the following:- | | | a) Whether the private property on which the appellant wants to do its advertisement activity falls within the permitted or forbidden zone? FLISH _7J-

b) The appellant's payment of the prescribed fee towards the renewal of permission, etc.

c) Its readiness/undertaking to abide by all the | | terms.

10. Sri Shivakumar, the. learned counse! | for the appellant submits that he would advise his client to make the proper application for the renewal. of. the: permission for erecting the advertisement hoardings ~

11. Recording the submissions made at the bar, | dispose of this appeal sipholding the order passed by the Trial Court dismissitig the appellint's LA.No.3 for temporary injunction. I reserve the liberty to the appellant's side to mak proper application for the renewal of the permission for ~ erecting 'the advertisement hoardings, etc. on the private

- property. 'i one such application is filed within three weeks from today. the same shall be considered by the respondents within 'three months from the date of its filing and in accordance with law. The consideration shall be not as if a ISH, ~Q-

fresh application for seeking the permission is filed, but treating as the application for renewal of permission. ~~

12. Now that the main matter- itself is disposed « cof, nothing survives for any consideration of Mis'. Cvi.2 191/ 2010 for temporary injunction. The same stands dismissed as having become unnecessary.

Pe y VGR |

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court