Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. "ASHOK RESTAURANT & BEER BAR" is the illuminated neon sign board displayed by the petitioners on the front of the hotel premises, According to the respondents this name board displayed by the petitioners attracts Sections 328 and 328A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. According to the respondents the petitioners have violated these provisions as the name board was displayed without prior permission of the Competent Au-thority under the said Act. According to the. respondents, the said name board amounted to an advertisement, announcement or direction as contemplated by the said Act. The petitioners, however, contend that it was merely a neon sign or illuminated name board of the petitioners, displayed on the front of the premises and that it amounted to neither advertisement nor announcement nor a direction as contemplated by the aforesaid provisions of the Act. The petitioners contend that it is only a name board indicating the place and the service or the purpose of the place or the business. Sheer display of the illuminated name board does not aniount to an advertisement or announcement or a direction. According to the petitioners, therefore, no permission from the municipal authorities was required for putting up an illuminated name board of the petitioners on the front of the hotel or restaurant premises. Shri Murthi has pointed out that from the name board, the place is identified as a hotel or a restaurant where eatables are available and also beer. From the name board no public is invited to visit the place. It only indicates that whoever desirous of having eatables or a glass of beer such items were available inside the hotel.

3. At the outset I must mention that the impugned notice dated 5.6.2000 issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner was vague. I need to reproduce the first paragraph of the said notice, which is as under :

"It is noticed that you have displayed skysign/glow sign/Neon sign/ illuminated boards on your premises without the permission of the Municipal Corporation. It is to inform you that under Sees. 328 and 328A of the M.M.C. Act before displaying these boards you should take permission and pay of the necessary charges."

The author of the notice was not at all sure whether the displayed matter was sky-sign or glow sign or Neon sign and/or illuminated board. According to me, when an action attracts penalty the notice must be absolutely clear. According to the notice, the displayed board was without the permission of the Municipal Corporation, and therefore, it had violated Sections 328 and 328A of the M.M.C. Act. The Petitioners were directed to make prescribed payment failing which a threat of action was given. There is however no dispute that the displayed board was on the premises of the petitioner. As I have already mentioned earlier that the Petitioners successfully challenged the validity of the said notice and the consequent threatened action before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By an order dated 7.8.2000 my learned brother Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J. directed the Respondents to hear the petitioner before passing any order. Accordingly, the Petitioner was heard by the Competent Authority which has passed the impugned order dismissing the representation of the Petitioner and directing the Licence Department to recover the necessary charges on account of the illuminated name board as per the provisions under Section 328A of the M.M.C. Act. Fortunately the Competent Authority has specified the fact of displayed board and it has called it as "the said illuminated name board placed outside the Restaurant". The Competent Authority however did not accept the contentions of the petitioner that Section 328 of the Act did not cover or Include the display of the name boards on the business premises. It also did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the display of such name boards on the premises of the Restaurant did not amount to an advertisement. The Ld. Competent Authority appears to have interpreted two judgments of the two learned Single Judges of this High Court in two criminal writ petitions that "advertising does turn the attention of the public to a commodity or service and in the broad sense it might be said that anything that turns attentions to an article or service might be called advertising." The Competent Authority applied the said observations to the facts of the present case and held that Illuminated name board draws the attention of the public and hence amounts to advertising in its broad sense.

5. I am fully fortified in the view which 1 have taken above by a Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (Lentin.J,) in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombaiy. The facts are more or less similar. In that case the petitioner B.P.C.L. had erected a pole on the petrol pump displaying the words "Burmah Shell" and the said metallic board was also illuminated at neight by a small light at the top. The projection of the metallic board in that case was on pavement displaying the symbol of shell which is the registered trademark of the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. Ltd. Such display attracted the Corporation to apply the provisions of Sections 328 and 328A of the Act. It was the case of the Company that such display of the board was not an advertisement, announcement or direction within the meaning of Section 328 of the Act. The respondents did not accept the said contention and initiated criminal proceedings against the company before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The company challenged the action of the Corporation by filing the aforesaid petition for appropriate writ directing the Municipal Corporation to withdraw or cancel those complaints and not to take any action against the company in respect of the board erected by the said company. The learned Single Judge in a very well written and reasoned judgment accepted the contentions of the petitioner company that the display of its name board did not amount to advertisement, announcement or direction. The learned Judge had dissected all the three terms in his own in imltable manner. The learned Judge observed that by display of the name board or the sign board there was no invitation to any member of a public to purchase the petitioner's products and that it was only to give an indication to the general public that it was the place where the member of public would find petrol. The learned Judge has held that the board was merely an indication oflocation of the petitioner's petrol pump and not an invitation to the motorists or the general public to purchase the petitioner's products. The learned Judge has also stressed a point that the board was on the premises of the very petrol pump and not away from the petrol station, which perhaps would have given rise to a contention that it was an advertisement. We have a stronger case and far better facts. In the case before Lentin, J, the sign board displayed the name of the product erected on a height pole on the pavement of the petrol station. Even then it was held by the learned Judge that it did not amount to advertisement, announcement or direction. The board only indicated the location and situation of the petitioner's premises. In our case the petitioner has displayed a sign board on the front of his premises. There is no mention of any product or service. The name board is hanged on the wall of the building just outside the entrance. It is not erected on any pole or bar from the business place. The board merely reads the name of the business and except displaying the name as Restaurant and Beer Bar there is no mention of what product or what Items or what services were available Inside the Restaurant. 1 am in respectful agreement with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge and the same is binding on me. This Judgment was carried by the Corporation in Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court (P.B. Sawant and V. S. Kotwal, JJ.]. By its Judgment dated 30,8.1985 in Appeal No. 167 of 1980 the Division Bench considered in great and minute detail the provisions of the Sections 328 and 328A of the Act and upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the Judgment which was impugned before the Division Bench. Even the Division Bench analysed the whole concept of advertisement, announcement and direction and observed that "even if the name board is held to be an advertisement or a direction unless it also amounts to an advertisement it will not attract the provisions of the said Section." The Division Bench further observed that whether a particular sign or sign board will amount to an advertisement will depend upon several factors including thenatureof the thing advertised, the class of its consumers or users, the method and manner of its sale or distribution, the location of the selling or distributing establishment, the need for and the intention behind the placing of the sign or sign boards, the site where the sign board is fixed or placed, the size, the method and the manner of its display, etc. The learned Judges further observed that what may amount to an advertisement in one case may not be so in another case and that no uniform criterion can be laid down to judge all signs and each sign will have to be judged on its own surrounding circumstances.