SUPRI ADVERTISING & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. versus DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 1187 · Decided: 02-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.., 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 1187 
~ 
SUPRI ADVERTISING & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5423 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 02, 2008 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND G.5. SINGHVI, JJ.] 
Traffic hazards: Mobile hoarding vehicles - Writ petition 
challenging permission granted by Municipal Corporation to 
various advertising agencies for display of hoardings -
c 
Directions of High Court that these vehicles should not be 
parked on main roads of city or even the carriage ways and 
should not obstruct free flow of traffic in any manner - Also 
directions to concerned Police authorities and competent 
authorities in the Corporation and registering authorities to 
D 
take action against such vehicles - Justification of - Held: 
High Court was not justified in questioning permission granted 
by these authorities on mere allegations made by an individual 
-
State Government, in consultation with Municipal 
Corporation, had duly considered the spots where these 
vehicles could be parked after study of flow of traffic at these 
E 
spots - Similarly, Municipal Corporation had also exercised 
its jurisdiction under ss.328 and 328-A of Mumbai Municipal 
Corporation Act in granting licences for parking of these 
vehicles for the display of advertisements - Motor Vehicles 
.._ 
Act, 1988- s.117 - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 F 
); 
- ss. 328 and 328-A - Environment laws. 
Respondent no.1 filed writ petition before High Court 
challenging the permission granted by Municipal 
Corporation to various advertising agencies for display 
i 
of hoardings in breach of the Guidelines framed under G 
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and provisions 
of other statutes which resulted in the environmental 
problems and serious damage to heritage buildings of 
the city besides causing traffic hazards. 
1187 
H 
1188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
/I 
A 
The Municipal Corporation denied the allegations 
made in the writ petition and contended that the 
permission granted to the appellants was in complete 
conformity with the provisions of the different enactments 
referred to in the writ petition and that apart from the 
B complaint of the respondent, no other complaint had been 
received from any of the inhabitants of Mumbai, either 
with regard to environmental problems, traffic hazards 
or obstruction to. the smooth flow of traffic on account of 
grant of such permission. 
c 
The High Court dismissed the notices of motion and 
directed that the mobile hoarding vehicles should not be 
parked on the main roads of Mumbai or even the carriage 
ways and should not obstruct free flow of traffic in any 
manner. It further directed the concerned Police 
D authorities and the competent authorities in the 
i 
Corporation and the registering authorities to take action 
against such vehicles, and after giving them proper 
opportunity, in accordance with law and in light of the 
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Aggrieved 
E appellants filed these appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court in its anxiety to ensure the 
free movement of traffic and the safety of both motorists 
F and pedestrians and to avert any untoward incident, has 
A-
"'. 
proceeded to question the decision taken by the 
competent authorities without having proper material 
before it to do so. Contrary to the power vested in the 
State Government and the lpcal authority under the 
G provisions of s.117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and 
-~ 
ss.328 and 328-A of the 1888 Act, the High Court has 
given directions which are beyond the scope of the writ 
petition. [Para 38] [1209;8-D] 
2.1. All the actions taken by the authorities in 
H permitting erection of hoardings, either fixed or otherwise 
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 
1189 
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. 
have been taken within the confines of the Mumbai Municipal 
A 
Corporation Act, 1888. While generally considering the 
complaint made by the respondent No.1 in her writ petition, 
the High Court has tangentially taken up another issue 
involving the eligibility under the Motor Vehicles Act and 
Rules of Mobile Hoarding Vans to operate on the roads in 
B 
..., 
their modified form. One of the issues raised by the 
respondent No.1 is that the vehicles which were used as 
Mobile Hoarding Vans had originally been registered as 
"goods carrying vehicles" or "display vehicles". Though 
the said issue has been given a good deal of thought by the 
High

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