By the writ petition, the respondent number1 sought the intervention of the High Court to put a check on hoardings, which according to the respondent number1, had proliferated alarmingly in the city of Mumbai.
In respect of 14 locations permission had earlier been granted to park Mobile Hoarding Vehicles near Heritage precincts.
In the writ petition, the respondent number1 herein challenged the permission granted to various advertising agencies for display of hoardings in breach of the guidelines framed by the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai under Sections 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter referred to as the 1888 Act, and the provisions of the other enactments mentioned hereinabove.
As indicated hereinabove, the objection taken by the respondent No.1 with regard to the damage being caused to the heritage buildings in the city had been taken numbere of by the companycerned authorities and such hoardings and advertisements have been directed to be removed, either from the buildings themselves or from in front of them.
One of the points raised by the respondent No.1 was with regard to the height of the hoardings which were erected on the chassis of the Mobile Vans by means of a hydraulic system, which was number permitted under the Motor Vehicles Rules.
In this regard, Mr. Chinoy referred to an affidavit filed by the then Joint Commissioner Police, ATS, holding additional charge of Joint Commissioner of Police Traffic , affirmed on 15.4.2008, wherein it has been mentioned that the Traffic Control Branch, Mumbai, had been granting numberobjection certificates since 2003 to Mobile Hoarding Vehicles.
Having regard to the companymon issues involved in the two appeals and the companynected applications, they were taken up for hearing together.
The respondent herein, Dr. Anahita Pandole, filed Writ Petition number1132 of 2002 before the Bombay High Court for relief mainly against the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and its authorities in granting licences for mobile hoardings, purportedly in violation of the provisions of Sections 308, 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the provisions of the Maharashtra Urban Areas Preservation of Trees Act 1975.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
The writ petition appears to have been filed on account of the writ petitioners companycern regarding the destruction of flora and fauna and the environment of Mumbai, the damage to heritage buildings in the city and also the prejudice purportedly caused to the safety of pedestrians and motorists in Mumbai.
However, once the same was brought to the numberice of the traffic police, the mobile hoarding advertisers were directed number to park the Mobile Hoarding Vehicles near Heritage precincts.
