M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 10-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M.C. MEHTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 10, 1997 
[J.S. VERMA, CJ., B.N. KIRPAL AND V,N. KHARE, JJ.) 
Roadside Hoardi11g~~-Co11seque11tial disturbance to safe traffice move-
111e11t-Order dated 20th No1•ember 1997 passed by Supreme Cowt-Direc-
ti 011s given therein by Supreme Court for removal of road-side 
C lwardings-Steps taken by autholities pursuant to order passed by Supreme 
Coun-Application filed by Delhi· Outdoor Advenisers Association for 
clalification and modification of orde~ontelltion that order enables the 
amhorities to act arbitrarily held not coJTect-Held the order passed by 
Supreme Coun was quite clear and had been coJTectly understood by all 
D concerned and authorities-Application for clarification of order consequently 
rejected. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 13029 of 1985 
Etc. 
E 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
In-person for the Petitioner. 
M.S. Usgaoncar, Additional Solicitor General, H.N. Salve, G. 
F Ramaswamy, Mukul Mudgal, A.N. Rao, Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Niranjana 
Singh, P. Parameshwdran, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. 
Anubha Jain, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, R.K. Kapoor, P. Verma, Anis 
Ahmed Khan, S.N. Sikka, Vijay Panwani, Ranjit Kumar, Kailash Vasdev, 
Salman Khurshid, R.K. Khanna, P.S. Raman,.Vineet Kumar, Tripurari 
G 
Ray, S. Maniklal, Ejaz Maqbool, Pramod K Sharma, A.S. Chandiok; 
Rajiv Dutta, H.S. Anand, R. Sasiprabhu, R.K. Maheshwari, Ashok 
Mathur, V.B. Saharya, R.P. Gupta, A.K. Sharma, Satish Aggarwal, A.A. 
Khan, L.K. Pandey, S.B. Upadhayay, S.R. Setia, Sanjay Parikh, D.K. 
Garg, D.S. Mehra for the appearing parties. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
368 
( 
/ 
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. 
369 
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 
A 
B 
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 cwiae, C 
we arc 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 a result of non- compliance of the 
notice by some persons. We are satisfied that the steps taken are in the D 
proper direction to identify and remove these hoardings. Shri G. 
Ramaswamy submitted that the order enables the authorities to act 
arbitrarily and to remove any hoarding at their will, which should not be 
permitted. In our opinion, such a perception is not correct. The order 
made by this Court on November 20, 1997, which was duly publicised has E 
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 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 
authorities to 'remove all hoardings which are on road-sides and which are 
hazardous and a disturbance to safe traffic "movement'. There is 110 
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 or 
F 
G 
not which is hazardous and a disturbance to safe traffic movement so as to H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic is required to be identified by 
the authorities and promptly removed. Obviously, the hazardous hoarding 
which is a disturbance to safe traffic movement has to be a hoarding visible 
to the traffic on the road. No other detail or f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.