http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M. C. MEHTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/12/1997

BENCH: B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: with 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. IA No. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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; every 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. Even 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.      We 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.      Interlocutory Application is, therefore, disposed of.