Supreme Court of India

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 804
Decided: 10 December 1997
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: S VERMAB N KIRPALV N KHARE

Holding

The Supreme Court held that its November 20, 1997 order directing the removal of hazardous roadside hoardings is clear, unambiguous, and must be implemented without further clarification, and it cannot be superseded by any stay or injunction.

Summary

The Delhi Outdoor Advertisers Association filed an application seeking clarification and modification of the Supreme Court's November 20, 1997 order directing the removal of roadside hoardings that disturb safe traffic movement. The Association argued that the order allowed authorities to act arbitrarily and that further notice to advertisers was required. The Court examined the notice issued by the M.C.D. Commissioner and subsequent individual notices, finding that sufficient public and individual notice had already been given. It held that the order was clear, unambiguous, and applied to all hazardous hoardings visible to traffic, irrespective of their type. The Court reiterated that the order must be implemented notwithstanding any stay orders or injunctions from other authorities. Consequently, the application for clarification was rejected and disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court's order authorising removal of roadside hoardings permits arbitrary action by authorities.
Whether additional notice or clarification is required for advertisers to comply with the order.
Whether the order is ambiguous or can be overridden by stay orders or injunctions issued by other courts or tribunals.

Subjects

roadside hoardingstraffic safetypublic noticearbitrary powerinterim reliefSupreme Court orderclarification applicationArticle 32writ petitionenvironmental law

Judgment

                                                                                     (
A                               M.C. MEHTA
                                     v.
                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                              DECEMBER 10, 1997

B          [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
    Ray, S. Maniklal, Ejaz Maqbool, Pramod K Sharma, A.S. Chandiok;
G   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                                                               A

          The application stands disposed of.

          IA No. 12

                                                                                  B
           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 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,
                                                                                   F
    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 G
    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
    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 further guideline is required
    for appreciating this order and its implementation. Even though the order
B   dated 20.11.1997 was explicit and very clear, yet these further observations
    are made to leave no one in any doubt of the content and requirement of
    our 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
C   to be implemented notwithstanding any other order or directions including
    stay orders/injunctions granted by any authority, court or tribunal to the
    contrary.

           Interlocutory Application is, therefore, disposed of.

    T.N.A.                                               Petition is still pending.




                                                                                      ,.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "roadside hoardings"Sign in to search