Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 1 Date : 30.10.2025
MHCC010053552019 Presented on : 30.05.2019
Registered on : 30.05.2019
Decided on : 30.10.2025
Duration : 06 05 00
Years Months Days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
L.C. SUIT NO. 1506 of 2019
Exhibit No.:24
M/s. V. R. Advertisers,
A Partnership Firm, having its Registered
Office at 1/41, Tardeo AC Market, Tardeo
Road, Mumbai – 400 034.
Through its partner Mr. Bimal Vora
]
]
]
]
] ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Office of Government Pleader, City Civil
Court, Mumbai.
]
]
]
]
2. The Police Inspector (Planning),
Addl. Charge, Assistant Police Commissioner
(Planning), Traffic Police Head Quarters, 87,
Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli,
Mumbai – 400 030.
]
]
]
]
]
3. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Traffic, Mumbai Traffic Police Head Quarters,
87, sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai –
400 030.
]
]
]
]
4. The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai,
Incorporated under the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 having its office at
Mumbai Municipal Head Office building,
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai – 400 001.
]
]
]
]
]
]
-- 1 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 2 Date : 30.10.2025
5. Superintendent of Licenses,
Dadar Pumping Station, 6th Floor, Sewerage
Operation Administrative Office Building,
249, Senapati Bapat Road, Dadar (West),
Mumbai – 400 028.
]
]
]
]
] ...Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SUBHASH K. KARHALE
C.R.NO..
: 08.
DATE : 30.10.2025.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Ld. Adv. Mrs. Hetal Patel for plaintiff.
2) Ld. Adv. Martina Sapkal for defendant No.1 to 3/State.
3) Ld. Adv. Apurva Dalal for defendant No.4 and 5/BMC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit to declare that it is entitled
to continue use and enjoyment of the suit illuminated outdoor
advertisement hoarding with structure of 20 x 20 ft. size in the
compound of Pleasant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., opposite Villa
Theressa, Peder Road, Mumbai – 400 026 (suit hoarding) without any
coercive action and threat pursuant to the impugned notice and order
No. APC/Planning/Traffic/1760/19 dated 06.04.2019 and / or dated
29.04.2019 without following due process of law. It sought the further
relief to declare that impugned notice dated 06.04.2019 and order
dated 29.04.2019 are illegal, void ab-initio, unenforceable and not
binding upon it and liable to be set aside. It sought the relief to issue
perpetual injunction restraining defendants from removing the suit
hoarding and causing obstruction to its use and enjoyment etc.
-- 2 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 3 Date : 30.10.2025
Brief Facts of the plaintiff’s case is as follows :
2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm and is an outdoor
advertising contractor, carrying on business of outdoor advertising in its
own name. It also obtains immovable properties / sites and construct
permanent hoarding structure thereon for displaying illuminated / non-
illuminated advertisements of its clients.
3. The plaintiff had erected suit hoarding bearing Permit/ SAP
no. 790771879 (Old Permit /SAP No. 76110424) by taking necessary
permission from the defendants. However, defendant no. 2 vide
impugned notice dated 06.04.2019 and order dated 29.04.2019 has
directed to the plaintiff that the suit hoarding has violated Clause 16(d)
of the Policy Guidelines and same be removed. The plaintiff had erected
the suit hoarding by following due process of law and by obtaining
necessary permissions and no objections from defendants. Hence, the
action of defendant no. 2 while issuing the impugned notice and order
is arbitrary and violative of the settled principles of natural justice and
without providing opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. The
defendants by issuing the impugned order have committed breach of
the relevant provisions of law and policy guidelines on the grant of
permission for display of advertisements U/Sec. 328 and 328(A) of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 and Bombay Police Act and Rules framed there under.
Hence, plaintiff prayed to declare impugned notice and order as illegal,
and not binding upon it and unenforceable and it be set aside. It also
sought perpetual injunction restraining them from removing suit
hoarding. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement
(Exh.5) and contested the suit. They have pleaded that the plaintiff has
-- 3 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 4 Date : 30.10.2025
failed to serve statutory notice U/Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC) upon them prior to filing of the suit. Hence, the suit is bad, not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed. This Court has no jurisdiction
to try and entertain the suit. The Traffic Control Branch, Mumbai vide
letter dated 06.04.2019 has issued notices to various agencies including
the present plaintiff directing them to remove the hoardings as they are
found to be violative of certain conditions of the policy guideline by
Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai (MCGM) regarding the
advertisements with illumination. After service of impugned notice
dated 06.04.2019 upon the plaintiff, it had given a written
representation which was received by those defendants on 24.04.2019
and the personal hearing was also given to the plaintiff. Thereafter, a
detail order was passed thereby directing the plaintiff to remove the suit
hoarding vide impugned order dated 29.04.2019. Hence, these
defendants have followed due process of law and the policy guidelines
for the grant of permission for display of sky-signs and advertisement
U/Sec. 328 and 328 (A) of the MMC Act. As per Clause 16(d) of
MCGM Policy, “no hoarding shall be permitted around traffic islands
and signal junctions within 25 meters distance from the road line. The
suit hoarding of the plaintiff was violative of above referred clause
16(d) and the policy. The traffic police department has to promote road
safety and public interest. The safety on roads is a major cause and
concern in India in general and particular in the highly congested roads
of Mumbai. Defendant no. 5 granted the permission to erect and display
non-illuminated hoardings for commercial profits. But, the suit
hoardings of plaintiff is within 25 meters of the traffic signal / junction
and hence, it was gross violation of clause 16(d) of MCGM Policy.
Hence, these defendants have prayed for dismissal of suit with cost.
-- 4 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 5 Date : 30.10.2025
5. Heard Ld. Advocate Mrs. Hetal Patel for plaintiff, Ld. Adv.
Martina Sapkal for defendant No.1 to 3/State and Ld. Adv. Apurva Dalal
for defendant No.4 and 5/BMC at length. Perused written submission
and case laws filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 3.
6. The defendant nos. 4 and 5 have not filed their written
statement and hence, the suit is proceeded without their written
statement.
7. Considering pleadings and documents on record my Ld.
Predecessor has framed following issues. I have recorded my findings
thereon with reasons stated below :-
SR. NO. ISSUES FINDINGS
I. Whether plaintiff proves that, it is entitle to
continue the use and enjoyment of its suit
illuminated outdoor advertisement
hoarding with structure as prayed?
In the negative.
II. Whether the plaintiff proves that, impugned
notice dated 06.04.2019 and order
29.04.2019 are illegal, null and void and
ultra-virus to Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act 1888?
In the negative.
III. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of
declaration as prayed?
In the negative.
IV. Whether the suit is maintainable? In the negative.
V. What order/decree? As per final order
REASONS :
8. Ld. Advocate Mrs. Hetal Patel on behalf of the plaintiff
submits that the plaintiff is using and enjoying the suit hoarding
continuously since the year 1994-1995. It has obtained license by
following due process of law and by paying necessary charges time to
time to the defendants. It has obeyed all the rules and regulations of the
-- 5 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 6 Date : 30.10.2025
advertisement and it has not violated any rules and regulations. It has
get renewed the license time to time from the defendants. The suit
hoarding is not causing any kind of nuisance or hurdle in the smooth
flow of traffic. There is no complaint against the plaintiff and the suit
hoarding. Hence, the action of defendants vide impugned notice and
order is arbitrary. No personal hearing was given to the plaintiff while
passing impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is passed without
following the principle of natural justice and same is liable to be
declared as null and void. The suit hoarding may not be removed
without following due process of law.
9. On the contrary Ld. Advocate Martina Sapkal on behalf of
defendant nos. 1 to 3 submits that the suit hoarding is situated withing
25 meters from the junction and the plaintiff has violated Rule 16(d) of
the Policy Guidelines. The plaintiff had made the representation and
even the personal hearing was also given to it. Thereafter, the
impugned order was passed in detail by assigning proper reasons.
Therefore, the action on the part of defendants vide impugned notice
and order was just and proper. The powers to issue license and in
respect of the policy guidelines are vested with the defendants. The
plaintiff is using and enjoying the suit hoarding even after rejection of
its notice of motion for continuation of the suit hoardings. Hence, the
suit be dismissed. The plaintiff be directed to pay the exemplary cost
to the defendants on account of illegal continuation and earning of the
suit hoarding. Ld. Advocates Mrs. Martina Sapkal in support of her
submissions has relied on following case laws :-
i) In and out Adverting V/s. The Commissioner of Police Writ
Petition (L) No. 1633 of 2019, wherein it is observed that,
We do not find the reason to interfere with the order of
the Joint Commissioner for he has found the hoarding to
-- 6 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 7 Date : 30.10.2025
be erected at a location which is prohibited in terms of the
policy and is in the larger interest of pedestrian and
motorist safety.
(ii) Pawan Advertising V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Writ
Petition No. 10220 of 2024, wherein it is held that,
“Imposition of exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on
account of suppression of correct facts and false statements
made in the writ petition by petitioner appears to be
reasonable and appropriate.”
iii) Mumbai Hoarding Owners’ Association & Anr. V/s. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. Writ Petition No. 228 of 2023, wherein it is
observed that,
The MCGM has large deposits, and it is itself in no urgent
need of funds. But there are others who would benefit
from this order of costs and therefore, costs quantified as
Rs. 5 Lakhs are to be paid within one week to each.
10. Ld. Advocate Apurva Dalal on behalf of defendant nos. 4
and 5 has supported the aforesaid submission on behalf of Ld. Advocate
for defendant nos. 1 to 3 and the observations on the above referred
case laws.
AS TO ISSUE NO. I AND II :
11. The issue no. I and II are interlinked with each other.
Hence, to avoid repetition, I have discussed these two issues together.
12. The evidence of PW.1 Bimal Vora (Exh.8) shows that he has
obtained necessary permission and no objection for the suit hoardings
from the concern departments/ defendants since the year 1994-1995
and continuously using and enjoying the same. He has not violated the
-- 7 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 8 Date : 30.10.2025
rules and Guidelines regarding suit hoardings. There is no complaint
against his suit hoardings. He has also renewed the license of the suit
hoardings by making payment of necessary charges but, due to
pendency of this suit, the defendants have refused the renewal of the
license of suit hoardings since the year 2019. Hence, the impugned
notice and the order are illegal, null and void. He is entitle to continue
the use and enjoyment of the suit hoarding.
13. The plaintiff by examining PW.1 Bimal Viren Vora on its
behalf has proved original copy of NOC dated 02.08.1995 (Exh.10),
photo copy of license fees paid by the plaintiff for the month of May
2019(Exh. 11), Original copy of order dated 05.12.2005 (Exh.12),
Original copy of order dated 01.09.2018 of D.M.C. (Zone III) (Exh.13),
the original copy of NOC dated 20.10.1994 issued by the Addl.
Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Bombay (Exh.14), Original copy of the
impugned notice dated 06.04.2019 issued by the Asst. Police
Commissioner of Traffic (Exh15), and order dated 29.04.2019 passed
by the Jt. Commissioner of police (Traffic) (Exh.16), Original office
copy of the letter dated 20.04.2019 (Exh.17), Certificate U/Sec. 65B of
the Evidence Act (Exh.18) and copy of photographs showing the exact
location of the suit hoarding (Exh.21).
14. PW.1 Bimal Vora during his cross examination admits that
he had received impugned notice dated 06.04.2019. He was called for
hearing and accordingly, he attended the same on 26.04.2019. Even
though later on he has denied the fact of personal hearing but, on
perusal of the impugned order dated 29.04.2019, it is clearly found that
the plaintiff had submitted written objection / representation to the
defendants and same was taken into consideration while passing the
-- 8 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 9 Date : 30.10.2025
impugned order. Therefore, I did not found any substance in the stand
of the plaintiff that the opportunity of hearing is not given and the
principle of natural justice is not being followed by defendants.
However, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of
plaintiff on record and the impugned notice and order (Exh.15 &
Exh.16), it is found that the suit hoarding is situated within 25 meters
from the traffic signal and junction.
15. On perusal of the impugned order dated 29.04.2019
(Exh.16) it is clearly found that a detail review of the representation
received from the plaintiff in the light of impugned notice (Exh.15) was
carried out by the defendants in the light of the provisions mentioned in
clause 16 of the POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE GRANT OF PERMISSION
FOR DISPLAY OF SKY-SIGNS AND ADVERTISEMENT U/SEC. 328 &
328-A OF THE MMC ACT, 1988. The original Clause 16(d) of the rules
read as follows :
“No hoardings shall be permitted around Traffic Islands
and signal junctions within a 25 meters distance from
the road line”
This Clause was subsequently amended and the
modified clause reads as under :
“No hoardings shall be permitted around traffic
islands and signal injunctions.”
Subsequently the following clarifications was asked
for :
“It becomes difficult to ascertain whether a particular
hoarding is violating this guidelines as the distance
criteria is not there. Further, whether the hoardings
erected in the private premises around traffic islands and
-- 9 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 10 Date : 30.10.2025
signal injunctions are to be treated as violating this
guideline clause or whether it is applicable only to the
hoardings erected on Municipal properties.”
AMC (City) has clarified that if not clear take
clearance from Traffic Police.
The said clause technically implies that the junction
box (intersectional area) around a traffic junction is
sacrosanct and a fixed distance on all approachers in all
directions (influence area) needs to be free of hoardings
since they are distraction to the Drivers and Pedestrians.
16. As per the principles of advertising control stated in the
policy on “ROADSIDE ADVERTISEMENT” OF THE INDIAN ROADS
CONGRESS which is a national body under Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways, Govt. Of India, in general, advertisements should not be
permitted at or within 50 meters of any road junction, bridge or another
crossing in an urban area. However, since the clause 16(d) of Rules
before modifications had stipulated a distance of 25 meters from the
junction on all approaches, the Traffic Control Branch, Mumbai Police at
present is not insisting on the 50 meters distance as stipulated in the
IRC norms.
(i) In view of the above, the considered view and opinion of
the Traffic Control Branch, Mumbai Police was that 25 meters stretch
from the end of the junction box (intersection area) on all approaches
shall be free of hoardings in view of public Safety and Public interest.
Hence, no hoardings can be permitted on these stretches.
17. The above referred rule clearly enumerates this clause
both for illuminated and non illuminated hoardings. However, the
-- 10 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 11 Date : 30.10.2025
Traffic Police are the Competent Authority for issuing an NOC for
illuminating hoardings only and has no ‘control’ as such over non
illuminated hoardings for which the MCGM is the competent authority.
In view of this, the NOC issued to the plaintiff firm for illuminated
hoardings as on the dead wall of Ajjomal CHSL, next to Film Division,
Peddar Raod, Mumbai was verified and found to be within 25 meters of
the injunction at on the dead wall of Ajoomal CHSL, next to Film
Division, Peddar Road, Mumbai and thus within the influence area.
Hence, the defendants have rightly withdrawn the said NOC with
immediate effects. As far as the non-illuminated hoarding is concerned,
the matter is being referred to the MCGM with a recommendation to
revoke the permission for the said hoarding located in the intersection
influence zone as stated above.
(i) It is also clarified that although clause 16(a) of the said
Policy Guidelines states that “no illuminated hoardings shall be
permitted within cone of vision of the driver without the NOC from the
Traffic Police Department,” the same has not been taken into
consideration at this stage because plaintiff’s suit hoarding is found to
have already violated clause no. 16(d) of the Policy Guidelines. The
issue of cone of vision can be appropriately raised as and when required
by the office of defendants.
(ii) It is also clarified that clause 16(b) of the Policy Guidelines
states that “No hoarding shall be permitted at intersection within a
distance of 25 meters from the stop line of each approach road facing
the hoarding erected on the ground level has also not been taken into
consideration at that point of time as the plaintiff has already violated
clause 16(d) as stated in the preceding paragraphs.
-- 11 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 12 Date : 30.10.2025
18. Thus, in view of above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that
the impugned notice dated 06.04.2019 and order dated 29.04.2019 are
illegal, null and void and ultra virus. It has failed to prove that it is
entitled to continue use and enjoyment of the suit hoardings for further
period. Hence, I answer issue no. I and II in the negative.
19. After finding of Issue no. I and II, it would be just and
proper to discuss issue no. IV instead of issue no. III.
AS TO ISSUE NO. IV :-
20. The plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit has get
leave of the Court and thereby the statutory notice U/Sec. 80(2) of the
Code of Civil Procedure is dispensed with. Hence, on this count, it can
not be held that the suit is not maintainable.
21. However, as discussed in the findings of the issue no. I and
II, the powers regarding policy and grant of permission / license for
display of Sky-signs and Advertisement are vested with the defendant
nos. 4 and 5 U/Sec. 328 and 328(A) of the MMC Act, 1888 with certain
no objections from defendant nos. 2 to 3 i.e. the Traffic Department of
the Government of Maharashtra. No power in that effect are vested with
this Civil Court. This Civil Court has no jurisdiction and power to sit in
Appellate jurisdiction and to adjudicate the impugned notice and order.
Thus, I hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this
suit. So also, for the aforesaid reasons, the suit is not maintainable
before this Court. Hence, I answer issue no. IV in the negative.
AS TO ISSUE NO. III :-
22. In view of my findings to Issue nos. I, II and IV, the plaintiff
has failed to prove the impugned notice and order as illegal, null and
-- 12 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 13 Date : 30.10.2025
void and ultra virus to the provisions of the MMC Act, 1888. Therefore,
there is no question to declare the impugned notice and order as null
and void nor that can be set aside. The defendants vide impugned
notice and order are following the due process of law for the removal of
the suit hoardings. Therefore, the due process of law followed by the
defendants as per the provisions of MMC Act, 1888, Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 and Bombay Police Act can not be halted by issuing injunction.
Thus, the plaintiff is not entitle for the reliefs of declarations and
injunctions as prayed. While the impugned notice and order are just
legal and proper. Hence, I answer issue no. III in the negative.
AS TO ISSUE NO. V :-
23. In view of my findings issue no. I to IV, the suit of the
plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs. In the result, I proceed to
pass following order :-
ORDER
1. The Suit is dismissed with cost.
2. Decree be drawn accordingly.
Date : 30.10.2025
Place : Mumbai.
(SUBHASH K. KARHALE),
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Greater Mumbai.
Dictated and typed on : 30.10.2025.
Signed on : 30.10.2025.
-- 13 of 14 --
Judgment
L.C.SUIT NO.1506/2019 14 Date : 30.10.2025
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER"
DATE : 31.10.2025, AT 11.40 A.M. MS. V.V. SAWANT
STENOGRAPHER GRADE-I
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court no.) : SHRI SUBHASH K. KARHALE. C.R.NO.08.
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
: 30.10.2025
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on : 30.10.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on : 31.10.2025
-- 14 of 14 --