Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Their vehicles are registered and their areas of operations are earmarked and none has complained against them. As such there is no reason even to carry any further the direction that they should not obstruct the flow of the traffic on the main roads or even on the side carriage roads. It is their specific contention that it will be inequitable to pass any injunctive order against them.

9. The Corporation has directly supported the case of these Applicants and has stated that after inviting public tenders the contracts were entered into and the guidelines framed in the year 2000 are applicable. Their entire reliance is on the provisions of Sections 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The Corporation had the power to issue licences or permissions for display of hoarding which is equally applicable even to mobile hoarding vehicles. The Corporation claims that it has power under Sections 313 and 314 of the Act to remove vehicles if they are causing public inconvenience and the police has to only exercise regulatory powers in terms of Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act and they cannot otherwise interfere with the contract.

19. In the light of the above factual matrix, let us proceed to analyse the power of the Corporation and the rights of the applicants visvis the other laws in force. According to the Corporation, it has exercised its powers under Section 328A. This provision vests regulatory and controlling power in the Corporation in relation to advertisements. No person can erect, exhibit, Page 1575 fix or retain any advertisement without the permission of the Commissioner. The Commissioner exercises such powers subject to the regulations framed in that behalf in terms of proviso 2 to subsection (1) of Section 328A providing certain relaxation where such provisions may not be necessary. Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 328A states further restrictions in relation to hoardings, structures on the lands, walls and buildings etc. Emphasis was placed on the word `structure' to contend that the wall hoarding was also covered and fall within the ambit and scope of power of the Corporation under this provision. Undoubtedly, subsection (4) of Section 328A states that the expression `structure' appearing in the section shall include a tram, car, omnibus and any other vehicle and any movable board used primarily as an advertisement or an advertising medium. For the purposes of discussion, we would proceed on the basis that Corporation has the power to regulate and control mobile hoardings on vehicles as stated in the provisions of the section. The expression `Omnibus' and any other vehicle has to be given its correct meaning, which will be in conformity with the laws regulating the manufacture, registration and operation of such vehicles and traffic and environmental laws in force. Expression `Omnibus' has been defined in The New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language, Deluse Encyclopedic Edition, Trident Press International, 2004 Edition as "A long; passenger vehicle sometimes with two decks; a bus". The term "omnibus" is defined in Section 2 (29) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver. In other words, this does not include vehicle other than a passenger vehicle of two decks or a bus simplicitor.

29. Another very important aspect of the matter is source of power with the Corporation and other authorities. Except Section 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, no other provision was referred to or brought to the notice of this Court which has even remote concern on the matter in issue in the present case. Of course, reference was made to the provisions of Sections 313 and 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, wherein the Corporation has power to remove without notice anything erected, deposited or hawked in contravention to the provisions of Sections 312 to 313A. Those provisions have no bearing on the power of the Corporation to issue such permission/licences. It was a commonly stated case of all the parties before the court that there is no other provision except under Section 328A empowering the Corporation in this regard. Furthermore, in exercise of powers under proviso to Section 328A, the Corporation has not framed any regulations or rules, The socalled policies are a mere guidelines framed by the Commissioner for exercising the alleged discretion vested in him under Section 328A of the Act. These guidelines which have been framed by the Commissioner for his own convenience do not and cannot have any force of law per se. They are nothing but guidelines prepared for exercise of administrative power by the authorities concerned. In the case of Talmakiwadi Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bombay 1999 (1) Mh.L.J. 406, the Supreme Court even held that even the Byelaws of the society do not have the force of law.

48. In the case of ICICI Bank and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 404, the Supreme Court while clarifying the powers of the Corporation stated that Sections 328A and 328 operate in different fields and do not completely overlap. While treating commercial interest as the basis for invocation of such powers, the Court stated that it cannot be said that signboards including ATM centres were treated as sky signs and this was not covered under Section 328. This itself shows that powers of the Corporation under Section 328A are not all omnibus. The Corporation cannot transgress limitations imposed by law in exercise of its powers under Section 328A and infringe it in complete disregard to the laws in force and cause public inconvenience and hurt environment. Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of administrative law that exercise of powers stemming from the legislation has to be exercise carefully, upon due application of mind and inconsonance with the provisions of the relevant laws in force. The Corporation is an appropriate authority or a body which is expected to improve public facilities and develop a city or a town to the best of its means but certainly within the prescribed limitations of law.