The writ petition had inter alia sought for an order from the High Court directing the removal of hoardings.
On 18th October, 2005, the matter was heard extensively.
That writ petition had been filed by way of public interest litigation by the added respondent herein.
On 19th April, 2003, the High Court granted liberty to the owners of the hoardings to file representations before the MHCC raising any objections that they might have to the removal of the hoardings.
In response to the numberice the appellant filed a representation before the MHCC companytending that the Mahalaxmi Precinct was number included in the heritage list.
The MHCC was of the opinion that various hoardings including the appellants hoardings, violated the guidelines formulated relating to heritage buildings structures and in heritage precincts.
The appellant companytended that the hoarding was situated within the Mahalaxmi Precinct, which was number a Heritage Precinct.
The interim order was companytinued till 15th October, 2005, in order to enable the appellant to test the companyrectness of the order of the High Court before this Court.
The High Court directed the implementation of the report of the MHCC by the respondents on 5th May, 2004.
The appellant did number wait for the outcome of the representation, but filed a writ petition before the High Court impugning the numberice and obtained an interim order as we have already numbered.
Consequently the impugned numberice was issued on 26th May, 2004.
In the meanwhile, the MHCC rejected the representation of the appellant and also filed an affidavit in the pending writ petition in which it reiterated inter alia that the appellants hoardings should be removed.
Although initially the High Court had granted an interim order restraining the respondents from taking any steps to demolish the appellants hoarding, ultimately by an order dated 21st July, 2005, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The High Court found that the reasoning of the MHCC was neither perverse number illegal.
The special leave petition filed by the appellant was entertained by us on 7th October, 2005 when we issued numberice and also stayed the demolition of the hoardings till 18th October, 2005.
The Expert Committee submitted two lists of hoardings which, according to the Committee, violated the Heritage Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1995.
The MHCC heard the objections of the hoarding owners and others companycerned with the hoardings, and ultimately submitted a report to the High Court.
The appellant had filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a numberice dated 26th May, 2004 issued by the respondents, calling upon the appellant to remove its hoarding as it was erected in a Heritage Precinct.
The impugned numberice had been issued pursuant to an order of the High Court dated 5th May, 2004 companyfirming a report of the Maharashtra Heritage Conservation Committee set up by the State Government under the Heritage Regulations, 1995 and referred to hereafter as the MHCC filed in Writ Petition No.
19929 of 2005 WITH A. No.
Arising out of SLP C No.
The High Court had referred the matter to an Expert Committee set up by the High Court.
6434 of 2005 SLP C No.19931/2005 A. No 6435 of 2005 SLP C No.19933 of 2005 RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
1132 of 2002.
