Holding

The High Court's directions were beyond its jurisdiction; the permissions were valid under the relevant statutes and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Dr. Anahita Pandole filed a writ petition challenging the Mumbai Municipal Corporation's permission to advertising agencies for displaying mobile hoarding advertisements, alleging traffic hazards, environmental damage and harm to heritage buildings. The Bombay High Court directed that such mobile hoarding vehicles should not be parked on main roads or carriageways and ordered police action. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the authorities had lawfully exercised powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by questioning the permissions on mere allegations without material evidence, and that the permissions were valid as they were granted after proper traffic studies under s.117 of the Motor Vehicles Act and ss.328, 328‑A of the Municipal Act. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's directions, and noted that any issue regarding vehicle modification falls within the domain of the Motor Vehicles authorities.

Issues considered

The legality of the Bombay High Court's directions prohibiting parking of mobile hoarding vehicles on main roads.
Whether the permissions granted by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the State Government were within the statutory powers under s.117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and ss.328, 328‑A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Whether the modification of vehicles for mobile hoarding falls under the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicles authorities.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 117
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888s. 328, s. 328-A

Subjects

mobile hoardingtraffic hazardsenvironmental lawmunicipal corporationadvertising hoardingsMotor Vehicles Actpublic interestheritage buildingwrit petitionSection 117Section 328Section 328-A

Judgment

.., [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
take action against such vehicles - Justification of - Held: D
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
of hoardings in breach of the Guidelines framed under G
i
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
/I
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

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
provisions of s.117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
G -~
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 c
High Court, however the authority to decide such a question
would be authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act and not
the Court. [Paras 32, 33] [1206,A-C; 1206,D-E)
Ramarao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees
Welfare Association (2004) 2 SCC 76; M. C. Mehta v. Union D
+- of India (1997) 8 SCC 770 - referred to.
2.2 The authorities who are entitled in law to grant
licence for displaying such advertisements, such as the
Municipal Corporation and the traffic police, have
assented to the grant of such licences upon holding that E
they do not constitute a traffic hazard nor did they disrupt
the smooth flow of traffic on the roads on which they are
permitted to be parked. The respondent No.1 has not
been able to provide any data on the frequency of the
'I
.... obstruction of smooth flow of traffic along the roads on F
which the Mobile Hoarding Vans had been allowed to be
parked. All that has been pointed out by the respondent
No.1 is that the height and width of the displayed
hoardings tend to distract motorists and obstruct
vehicular traffic of a certain height. On the other hand, G
the affidavits filed on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation and the Mumbai Traffic Police clearly indicate
that they have no objection to the grant of licences to
Mobile Hoarding Vans and that those already granted
had been so granted after a proper study had been made H
I~
'

1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A of the traffic conditions and the flow of traffic at the spots
where the Mobile HoardingVans were ultimately permitted
to be parked for displaying their hoardings. [Paras 33,
34] [1206,E-H; 1207,A-B]
2.3. Except for the respondent No.1, no other citizen
8 of the city joined the litigation to support the stand taken
by the respondent No.1. [Para 34] [1207,B]
2.4. Care was taken by the Municipal authorities, as
well as the traffic police, to ensure that the cone of vision
c of the person driving a vehicle was not obstructed by
such Mobile Hoardings. [Para 34] [1207,C]
2.5. 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 note of by the
D concerned authorities and such hoardings and ____
advertisements have been directed to be removed. [Para i
34] [120~,C]
2.6 Though the destruction to the flora and fauna of
Mumbai city was not treated as the principal issue before
E this Court, it would certainly be in the interest of the public
to see that such greenery within the city is not destroyed
or interfered with. It is well accepted that trees provide an
ecological respite against the amount of pollution
generated in a commercial city like Mumbai on account
F of the sheer number of vehicles that travel on the roads 4-
and the volume of people moving in and out of Mumbai
city in connection with their work. It would definitely be
in the interest of the residents as well as the mobile
population of Mumbai if the green cover available in
. G Mumbai is not only preserved but also increased. [Para
34] [1207,D-F]
2.7. Care has also been taken to ensure that Mobile
Hoarding Vans are not parked near signals, turns,
H bottlenecks or any other place which may interrupt the
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 1191
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS.
~

smooth flow of traffic. lnspite of the above, in case of a A
traffic blockage at a spot where such Mobile Hoarding
Vans are parked, it has been stated that they are asked to
move to some other location to clear such blockage. [Para
35] [1207,H; 1208,A-B]
3. In the instant case, the State Government, in B
..(

consultation with the Mumbai Municipal Corporation,
appears to have invoked the provisions of the s.117 of
Motor Vehicles Act to indicate the spots at which the Mobile
Hoarding Vans could be allowed to park and that too
after a study of the flow of traffic at such given spots. c
Similarly, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has also
exercised its jurisdiction under ss. 328 and 328-A of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act in granting licences
for the parking of Mobile Hoarding Vans for the display of
advertisements. Since the authorities which have been D
empowered to grant such licences and to specify spots
for parking, have exercised their authority, it would not
be safe for the Court to question the decision taken by
the said authorities on the basis of allegations made by
an individual, without having anything more to rely upon, E
especially, in the face of the affidavits affirmed both on
behalf of the Municipal Corporation and the Traffic Police.
[Para 36] [1208,C-F]
~
)' 4. There is, however, one sphere which possibly
~requires further inquiry and that is with regard to the F
modification of the vehicles carrying the mobile hoardings
from their original form to make them suitable for display
of such hoardings. Although, the same is not directly in
issue in the instant case, the said question has been gone
~
into by the High Court in some detail. Such issue is within G
the domain of the Motor Vehicles Authorities and not the
concern of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation or the
Mumbai Traffic Police. In respect of such grievance, the
respondent No.1 may take up the issue with the
authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, who are H
1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A competent to deal with the same. [Para 37] [1208,G-H;
1209,A-B]

(2004) 2 sec 76
Case Law Reference
referred to Para- 20
..
'

B (1997) a sec 110 referred to Para 26
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5423
~2008 .

From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.5.2008 of W'le
c High Court of Judicature at Bombay. in Notice of Motion No.
155 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1132 of 2002
WITH
C.A. No. 5424 of 2008
D Aspi Chinoy, P.H. Parekh, Diksha Rai (for M/s. Parekh &
Co.) Gopal Jain, Nandini Gore, Prachi Goel and Karanjawala
for the Appellant.
Pallav Shisodia, S.J. Billimoria, D.N. Mishra,Arvind Kumar,
E Gaurav Goel, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala and E.C.
Agrawala for the Respondents.
Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay V. Kharde and Asha Gopalan
Nair for the State.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F ~-.
'
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted in both the Special
Leave Petitions .
. Having regard to the common issues involved in the two
appeals and the connected applications, they were taken up
G for hearing together.
2. The respondent herein, Dr. Anahita Pandole, filed Writ
Petition no.1132 of 2002 before the Bombay High Court for
relief mainly against the Municipal Corporation of Brihan
H Mumbai and its authorities in granting licences for mobile
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 1193
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
,..._
hoardings, purportedly in violation of the provisions of Sections A
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. The writ petition appears to have been filed on
account of the writ petitioner's concern regarding the destruction B
...., 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.
By the writ petition, the respondent no.1 sought the intervention
of the High Court to put a check on hoardings, which according c
to the respondent no.1, had proliferated alarmingly in the city of
Mumbai.
3. In the writ petition, the respondent no.1 herein challenged
the permission granted to various advertising agencies for
display of hoardings in breach of the guidelines framed by the D
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. In fact, the writ
petitioner also challenged the provisions of the guidelines which E
had been framed on the ground that they were contrary to the
provisions of the aforesaid enactments.

4. The case made out in the writ petition is that Section
328 of the 1888 Act, inter alia, prohibits any person, without the
~
+ written permission of the Municipal Commissioner, to erect, fix F
or retain any sky-sign, which includes hoardings. Section 328
further provides that no permission under the Section is to be
granted or renewed, for any period exceeding two years from
the dat~ of each su_ch permission or renewal. Sub-section (3)
~
of Se~t1on 32~ prov1d~s that the Municipal Commissioner may G
by written notice require the removal of any sky-sign which is
erec!ed, fixed or retained in contravention of the provisions of
Sect1~n 328 or after the permission for such erection, fixing or
rete~t1on thereof shalr have expired or become void. In addition,
Section 328 A of the Act provides that no person shall, without H
1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

-~

A the written permission of the Municipal Commissioner, erect,
exhibit, fix or retain any advertisement upon any land, building,
wall, hoarding or structure. Cert?in types of advertisements
exempted from the aforesaid restriction, are also included in
· the Section.
B 5. In the writ petition it was alleged that permission to \_
display mobile hoardings had been granted to different
applicants which has not only caused environmental problems ~
but had also resulted in serious damage to heritage buildings ~
of the city, eesides causing traffic hazards, even on the arterial
c roads of the city and disrupting the smooth flow of traffic. It may
be pointed out at this stage that neither of the appellants herein
had been made parties to the writ petition, but on their applicati6r1 ___ ··
they had been allowed to intervene in the proceedings.
~
6~ The writ petition, however, focuses more on the alleged
D
violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) 1
Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, and reference to the provisions
of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, have been made to buttress such contention.

E 7. The allegations made in the Writ Petition were denied
on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. It was contended
that the permission granted to the appellant in these appeals
was in complete conformity with the provisions of the different
enactments referred to in the writ petition and it was significant
F that apart from the complaint of the writ petitioner 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.
G 8. On consideration of the submissions made on behalf of "-
the respective parties and the documents produced on their
behalf and the Policy Guidelines on Grant of Permission for
Display of Advertisements and Similar Devices, 2007, the
Bombay High Court dismissed Notices of Motion Nos.155/
H 2008, 156/2008 and 171/2008, with the following directions:
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 1195
DR. ANAHITA PAN DOLE & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

"1. In view of the relevant statutory provisions, settled A
principles of law and for the reasons aforerecorded, we
direct that 'the mobile hoarding vehicles shall not be parked.
on the main roads of Mumbai or even the carriage ways
and would not obstruct free flow of traffic in any manner
whatsoever at main roads and carriage ways of Mumbai'. B
Resultantly, we see no reason to vacate the interim orders
dated 13th March 2008 and 3rd April 2008. On the contrary,
the above orders are made absolute.
2. We direct the State Government and the Corporation to
make appropriate regulations in exercise of their c
respective statutory powers and in consultation with the
appropriate bodies in relation to advertisement hoardings.
It need to be examined by these authorities whether such
mobile hoarding vehicles can at all be granted such
permissions and/or licences in light of this judgment and D
.,.. the law in force .
3. We further direct the concerned Police authorities and
the competent authorities in the Corporation and the
regi~tering authorities to take action against such vehicles,
and after giving them proper opportunity, in accordance E
with law and in light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, particularly in relation to design, manufacturing,
construction, equipping and alteration of vehicles and
consequential impact thereupon upon registration of such
vehicles. F
>
+
4. We also issue further directions to the Chief Secretary
of the State of Maharashtra to examine all these cases
and fix responsibility in all the concerned Department and
Public Authorities, if the officers are found to be erring.
G
,J-
Further the State should, in consultation with other
Authorities, including Municipal Corporation and Police,
should frame proper policy in regard to various facets
examined by the court in this judgment.
5. All concerned authorities shall ensure compliance of H
1196 SUPREME ~OURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A this order in spirit and substance.
6. Notices of Motion Nos.155 of 2008, 156 of 2008 and
171 of 2008 are accordingly dismissed. In the
circumstance·s, we do not propose to award any costs."
B 9. It is against the said decision of the Bombay High Court
that the present appeals have been filed.
10. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned
senior counsel, submitted that the initial contract granted to the
appellant under Section 328-A(4) of 1988 Act was in January,
C 2003, and, thereafter, a fresh contract was granted in favour of
the appellant on 21.5.2007 for a period of 2 years for a licence
fee of Rs.10 crores. 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
D (Traffic); affirmed on 15.4.2008, wherein it has been mentioned
that the Traffic Control Branch, Mumbai, had been granting "no
objection certificates" since 2003 to Mobile Hoarding Vehicles.
It has also been stated that 61 such licences for Mobile Hoarding
Vehicles had been granted by the Municipal Corporation of
E Greater Mumbai and that advertisers were permitted to park
such Mobile Hoarding Vehicles at 89 locations on public roads.
In addition, ''no objection certificates" had also been granted by
the Traffic Control Branch, Mumbai, to 11 Mobile Hoarding
Vehicles which have been permitted to park at places other
F than public roads, i.e. 2 inside the BEST Bus Depot, Juhu Tara
Road, Haveli Hotel, inside Juhu Car parking-I, and at Alidheri
Sahar Road inside the premises of New Airport Colony, Vile
Parle and the land belongjng to Maharashtra Maritime Board
at Mahim Causeway. In Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 of
G the affidavit it has been further mentioned that on receipt of the
applications for issue of "no objection certificate" the officers of
the Traffic Control Branch, who were in charge of the local
traffic division, visited the spots in respect of which requests
had been· received and they studied the traffic conditions on
those particular spots. Only if it was found that the proposed
H
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 1197
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. [AlTAMAS KABIR, J.]

" ......_ parking locations did not create any traffic problems then only A
such locations were approved. Furthermore, periodical checking
is carried out by the Traffic Control Branch officers to ensure
that the Mobile Hoarding Vehicles are not parked on any location
other than the approved locations for which the no objection
had been issued. B
../.., 11. Mr. Chinoy also referred to an affidavit filed by the then
Joint Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Mumbai, which was
affirmed on 21.4.08 on the basis of directions given by the High
Court regarding details of the Mobile Hoarding Vehicles and
·~ the places where they were located. While answering the queries c
formulated by the High Court, it was also stated that while
granting "no objection certificates" to the concerned agencies,
the Traffic Control Branch had studied the flow of traffic at every
particular location. In respect of 14 locations permission had
earlier been granted to park Mobile Hoarding Vehicles near D
Heritage precincts. However, once the same was brought to
~·
the notice of the traffic police, the mobile hoarding advertisers
were directed not to park the Mobile Hoarding Vehicles near
Heritage precincts. It has been further indicated that though the
Municipal Corporation had given permission tor displaying E
hoardings on Municipal roads, advertising agencies were not
allowed to park their vehicles arbitrarily. It was categorically
mentioned that generally in the morning hours, south bound
traffic is very heavy, and, therefore, Mobile Hoarding Vehicles
are allowed to be parked on the north-bound carriage way and F
..... in the evening when the north-bound traffic is very heavy, the
~
Mobile Hoarding Vehicles are allowed to be parked on the
south-bound carriage way. Due care is taken to ensure that the
Mobile Hoarding Vans are not parked near signals, turns,
bottlenecks or any other place which may cause traffic problems
G
hampering the smooth flow of traffic.
12. In addition to the above, it has also been stated that
even when permission is granted for Mobile Hoarding Vehicles
to be parked at a particular spot, at times when it is found that
parking at such spots causes a disruption in the flow of traffic, H
1198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A offkers of the traffic police at times request the vehicles to be
removed. Even when situations arise like heavy traffic,
diversions, natural calamities, law and order, VVIP visits etc.,
these vehicles are asked to be removed even from the marked
spots to ensure smooth flow of traffic.
B 13. Mr. Chinoy submitted that the appellant company had
always acted upon the contract executed in their favour and it
has entered into third party agreements for display of
advertisement and mobile vans. Consequently, neither the traffic
police nor the Municipal Council of Greater Mumbai had any
C authority to determine such contract. Mr. Chinoy submitted that l~
the appellant company had at no point of time violated any of l
I
the terms of the contract and till 17.3.2008 no objections had
been raised from any quarter objecting to the parking of the
mobile vans at the spots identified by the traffic police. He
D submitted that at no point of time had any of the Mobile Hoarding
vans been directly responsible for any incident of traffic
congestion and the alleged obstruction of the flow of traffic was
never an issue till the respondent No.1 took up cudgels allegedly
on behalf of the general public of Mumbai. Mr. Chinoy urged
E that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, no
objection had been taken regarding the statement~ made in
the affidavits of the appellant hereinabove referred tq. In addition
to the above, Mr. Chinoy, in reference to the prayers made in
the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1, urged that no
F where is there any mention of Mobile ljoarding Vans nor has
any relief been prayed for in respect thereof.
14.Mr. Chinoy contended that instead of focusing on the
main issue regarding grant of licence for display of hoarding on
mobile vans the High Court involved itself with other issues
G such as types of vehicles which could be used for the purpose
of displaying Mobile hoardings. The High Court also took up
another issue inter-connected with the first issue involving the
alteration of vehicles/vans which were altered after registration
to make them compatible for the purpose of carrying Mobile
H Hoardings. The High Court held that the same had been done
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 1199
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.J

in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, A
1988 and the licenced granted to such vehicles for display of
mobile hoardings were liable to be cancelled.
15. Mr. Chinoy submitted that the High Court had also
erroneously relied on newspaper reports and photographs which
were produced by the writ petitioner to bolster her case B
regarding obstruction and impediment of traffic allegedly
~
caused by such Mobile Hoarding Vehicles.
16. Mr. Chinoy submitted that it is on the basis of such
newspaper reports that certain presumptions had been drawn c
by the High Court relating to parking places allotted by the
\ttaffic police for parking of the Mobile Hoarding Vans. In this
regard, reference was made to Section 117 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, which, inter alia, provides that the State
Government may, in consultation with the local authority having
D
jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine places at which
~
motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specific
period of time. It was urged that the Mobile Hoarding Vehicles
were either parked on the spots allotted by the Municipal
Corporation in consultation with the traffic police or in parking
zones which, in any event, were meant for parking of vehicles. E

17. Mr. Chinoy submitted that the writ petition filed by the
respondent No.1 and the reliefs sought for therein were entirely
misconceived and without any foundation. He submitted that
the High Court had erred in dismissing the Notice of Motion
F
-4- No.155 of 2008 filed on behalf of the appellant herein in the writ
>
petition filed by the respondent No.1 giving a· blanket direction
that no Mobile Hoarding Vehicle should be parked in the main
roads. and carriageways.

18 .Appearing for the appellant, lmaan Publicity, in Special G
.......
Leave Petition (C)No.14822 of 2008, Syed Tanvir Shah learned
advocate, while adopting Mr. Chinoy's submissions, added a
few facts which were peculiar to the said case.

19. He firstly mentioned that the licence which had been
H
1200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.

A granted by the Public Works Department on 28.11.2005 was
for parking mobile hoarding vans on the Eastern Express
Highway, which did not in any way cause any blockage which
could have a cascading affect on traffic within the city of
Mumbai. In the permission so granted, it was also indicated
s that the appellant would also have to obtain necessary
permission from the Traffic Police· and the Brihan Mumbai
Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred
to as "the BEST Undertaking") and the Greater Bombay
Municipal Corporation and it was stipulated that if any one of
c the three authorities chose not to grant permission, the
permission granted by the Public Works Department would be
cancelled.
20. Mr. Shah submitted that, thereafter, the appellant also
obtained "no objection certificate" from the BEST Undertaking
D which granted such "no objection certificate" for 10 mobile
hoarding vans on the Eastern Express Highway on 14.3.2006.
This was followed by permission granted on 18.4.2006 by the
office of the Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) in respect
of such 10 mobile hoarding vans on the Eastern Express
E Highway. The permission granted by the said three authorities
was supported by the permission granted by the Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai on 23.6.2006 for a period of 5
years up to the year 2011. As many as 32 conditions were
included by the said Corporation in its letter granting permission
F for parking/plying 10 Mobile Hoarding Vans or vehicles/lorries
on the 'Eastern Express Highway. Mr. Shah urged that when all
the concerned authorities who were required to give "no
objection certificates" for permission to the appellants to display
advertisements on Mobile Hoarding Vans had given such
G certificates, it was quite erroneous on the part of the High Court
in giving the directions impugned in the appeal relying on
newspaper reports and photographs produced by the writ
petitioner in support of her case of alleged obstruction and
impediment of traffic said to have been caused by some of the
mobile hoarding vehicles. Reference was made by Mr. Shah to
H
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 1201
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

the decision of this Court in Ramarao vs. All India Backward A
Class Bank Employees Welfare Association, (2004) 2 SCC
76), for the proposition that though the High Court is entitled to
take into consideration subsequent events, the same can only
be a relevant factor for the purpose of moulding the reliefs, but
while moulding such reliefs the High Court could not have B
considered grant of a relief where no factual foundation existed
or was laid in the pleadings of the parties, which has been
explained in paragraph 25 of the judgment.
21. Mr. Shah urged that the impugned judgment of the
High Court was based more on conjecture than actual facts C
and was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
22. Learned counsel for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation,
Mr. Pallav Shisodia, submitted that the High Court had failed to
appreciate the fact that granting of licences by the Municipal
0
Corporation was part of its legitimate commercial activity on
which fetters could not be imposed except on grounds of public
interest and disruption of normal life within the area of its
jurisdiction. He submitted that the Municipal area of Greater
Mumbai was divided into 3 zones, namely:
E
i) City zone which extends up to Mahim;
ii) Eastern zone which extends from Sion to Mulund; and
iii) East-Western zone which extends from Mahim to
Gaisal. F
He submitted that in each zone permission has been given
for 10 vehicles to be used as Mobile Hoarding Vans for the
purpose of display of advertisements. He submitted that the
guidelines which had been issued in the year 2000 had
subsequently been superseded by the guidelines published in G
2008 wherein several other criteria were included for the
purpose of grant of permission for display of sky-signs and
advertisements under Sections 328 and 328-A of the 1888
Act. Mr. Shisodia submitted that all the said restrictions have
been included in the conditions for grant of permit either by the H
·- ,..... ----···· ~

1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

·A Bombay Municipal Corporation or the Traffic Police. He urged ..l
that the High Court had taken note of the said conditions and
the powers of the Corporation flowing from the provisions of
Sections 328 and 328-A of the Act and had elaborately
discussed the same. While holding that the guidelines had been
B framed by the Commissioner only for the purpose of exercising
the discretion vested in him under Section 328-A, the High
Court also held that the same do not and cannot have the force
of law per se ~nd are nothing but guidelines prepared for
exercise of administrative power by the authorities concerned.
C 23. 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 not permitted under the Motor Vehicles
Rules. Replying to the same, Mr. Shisodia submitted that the
D said condition would relate to the fabrication of the display
vehicles which was in the domain of the Motor Vehicles
Department, and in the absence of the views of the Motor
Vehicles authorities and also having regard to the fact' that
permission for parking the said vehicles had been given by the
E Traffic Department, the same could not be a reason not to grant
permission to the appellants to use Mobile Hoarding Vans for
the display of advertisements.
24. Mr. Shisodia concluded his submissions on the note
that the directions ultimately given in the impugned judgment
. F were completely beyond the scope of the writ petition and the
prayers made therein. He submitted that the High Court had
exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
in giving the directions complained of without there being any
factual foundation for the same.
G
25. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State of Maharashtra. However, Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel
appearing for the State, relied upon the affidavit affirmed by the
Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Mumbai, whereby grant
H of licence to the appellant and others for parking Mobile
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 1203
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
A

Hoarding Vans for display of advertisements had been sought A
to be justified. Mr. Kaushik also referred to paragraph 10 C?f the
impugned judgment wherein it had been stated that the State
Government had issued permits for the vans which were found
road-worthy and it had no serious objection to the continuation
-"'(
of these vehicles on the road. He objected to the finding of the B
High Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment that the State had
not been able to come out with a clear and definite stand on the
matter in issue. According to Mr. Kaushik, the stand of the State
Government was quite clear that it had no objection to the grant
of permission by the concerned authorities. to the Mobile c
Hoarding Vans subject to the condition that the flow of traffic
was not impaired by the parking of such vehicles, though, of
course, it had been submitted on behalf of the Corporation that
in certain eventualities if there was any interference with free
flow of traffic for any particular reason, where a Mobile Hoarding D.
~
Van was parked, the same had been directed to be removed
to another location to enable the Traffic Police to clear the
traffic jam.
26. Neplying to the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant, the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal E
Corporation, Mr. Arvind Kumar, appearing for the respondent
No.1 (the writ petitioner before the High Court), submitted that
the problem posed in the writ petition before the High Court
was not of recent origin and had also fallen for consideration in
....__
other matters, such as the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of F
India, (1997) 8 SCC 770, regarding some of the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and their relevance in the
management of control of traffic in the National Capital Region
and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It was submitted that
the questions raised involved public safety and, therefore, came
~· G
within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also held
that the Motor Vehicles Act provides sufficient powers to the
Transport and Police authorities to effectively deal with the
problem and the same had to be construed so as to keep
individual or a class interest subordinate to the larger public
H
1204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A interest. In fact, certain directions were also given by this Court
to the police and all other authorities entrusted with the
administration and enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act and
control and regulation of traffic, in exercise of the powers vested
in this Court under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the
a Constitution.
27. The said directions were given mainly with the intention
of ensuring public safety and to ensure that the vehicles used
on the roads did not impair public safety.
c 28. Mr. Arvind Kumar submitted that after the aforesaid
decision of this Court in M.C. Mehta's case (supra), certain
other writ petitions on the same issues were also taken up for
consideration along with several Interlocutory Applications filed
in the disposed of writ petition, being Writ Petition (Civil)
No.13029 of 1985. 1.A.No.12, which was filed in the said writ
0
petition, was made by the Delhi Outdoor Advertising Association
praying for clarification/modification of the Order dated
20.11.1997 in so far as it related to the direction given therein
for the removal of all hoardings which are on roadsides and
which are alleged to be a disturbance to safe traffic movement.
E Mr. Arvind Kumar pointed out that this Court rejected the said
prayer upon observing that the order dated 20.11.1997 was
quite clear and had been correctly understood by the authorities
and all concerned. This Court observed that the order directed
that every hoarding, other than traffic signs and road-signs on
F 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 adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic, is required
to be identified by the authorities and promptly removed. It was
G also observed that obviously the hazardous hoarding which is
a disturbance to safe traffic movement has to be a hoarding
visible to the traffic on the road.
29. Mr. Arvind Kumar then pointed out that the Certificate
of R.egistratiOn of one of the Mobile Hoarding Vans for which
H I
SUPRI ADVT & ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD. v. 1205
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
~-

permission had been granted to the appellant for display of A
hoardings clearly indicated that the vehicle in question was a
Medium Goods Vehicle which had been referred to. as a Display
Vehicle. Furthermore, in the Goods Carriage Permit the usage
of the vehicle was shown to be for carrying general goods. Mr.
Arvind Kumar urged that the vehicle in question had been altered B
to meet the requirements for raising hoardings on the vehicle
in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles
Rules. In addition to the above, Mr. Arvind Kumar also pointed
out from the pictures annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondent No.1 that the hoardings on the mobile vans had c
been raised and placed in such a manner when parked that a
portion of the hoarding was jutting out on the main carriageway
; which in itself was a traffic hazard. He also pointed out that
Mobile Hoarding Vans were also parked at will even in "No
Parking" Zones.
D
30. Mr. Arvind Kumar urged that in addition to the above,
the raised hoardings were raised above the height permitted
for carrying goods on transport vehicles and created distraction
for motorists which could lead to serious consequences as far
as the pedestrian public was concerned. E
31. Mr. Arvind Kumar submitted that after meticulously
considering all the materials on record and the submissions
made on behalf of the parties, the High Court had rightly
dismissed the writ petition with the directions given in the
4.
impugned judgment keeping in mind the general public interest F
·"
as against the commercial interest of a few. It was submitted
that the impugned judgment of the High Court was just and
equitable and no interference was called for therewith.
32. We have carefully considered the submissions made
G
on behalf of the respective parties, having particular regard to
the issues that have been raised, which undoubtedly concerned
the public interest and safety of motorists and pedestrians and
seek to ensure free and smooth flow of traffic in the city of
Mumbai. We have also considered the writ petitioner's concern
H
1206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
¥
A with regard to the damage to the flora and fauna and the
environment of Mumbai, together with the damage to heritage
buildings in the city. However, all the actions taken by the
respondents in permitting erection of hoardings, either fixed or
otherwise, appear to have been taken within the confines of the
B Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. While generally ; l--
considering the complaint made by the respondent No.1 in her
writ petition, the Bombay 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
c in 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". It was urged that after their ,
\
modification the Mobile Hoarding Vehicles underwent a
completetransformation which necessitated the grant of fresh
D ...,.._
Certificates of Registration from the Motor Vehicles authorities.
\-
33. Though the said issue has been given a good deal of
thought by the High Court, the authority to decide such a question
would be authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act and not the
E Court. Secondly, the authorities who are entitled in law to grant
licence for displaying such advertisements, such as the Mur:nbai
Municipal Corporation and the traffic police, have assented fo
the grant of such licences upon holding that they do not constitute
a traffic hazard nor did they disrupt the smooth flow of traffic on
,.)..
F the roads oh which they are permitted to be parked. The ~.

respondent No.1 has not been able to provide any data on the
frequency of the obstruction of smooth flow of traffic along the
roads on which the Mobile Hoarding Vans had been allowed to
be parked. All that has been pointed out by the respondent
No.1 is that the height and width of the displayed hoardings
G j.._
tend -to distract motorists and obstruct vehicular traffic of a
certain height.
34. On the other hand, the affidavits filed on behalf of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the Mumbai Traffic Police
H clearly indicate that they have no objection to the grant of
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 1207
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. [Al TAMAS KABIR, J.]
~

licences to Mobile Hoarding Vans and that those already A
---1 granted had been so granted after a proper study had been
made of the traffic conditions and the flow of traffic at the spots
where the Mobile Hoarding Vans were ultimately permitted to
be parked for displaying their hoardings. It is also significant
that except for the respondent No.1 no other citizen of the city B
~
of Mumbai has joined the litigation to support the stand taken
by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. Care has been taken by
the Municipal authorities, as well as the traffic police, to ensure
that the cone of vision of the person driving a vehicle was not
obstructed by such Mobile Hoardings. As indicated hereinabove, c
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 note of by the concerned authorities and such
hoardings and advertisements have been directed to be
removed, either from the buildings themselves or from in front
D
,• .:..; of them. In this connection we may also add that though the
destruction to the flora and fauna of Mumbai city was not treated
as the principal issue before us, it would certainly be in the
interest of the public to see that such greenery within the city is
not destroyed or interfered with. It is well accepted that trees
provide an ecological respite against the amount of pollution E
generated in a commercial city like Mumbai on account of the
sheer number of vehicles that travel on the roads and the volume
of people moving in and out of Mumbai city in connection with
their work. It would definitely be in the interest of the residents
.4.
' ~ as well as the mobile population of Mumbai if the green cover F
available in Mumbai is not only preserved but also increased.
In this regard we are in agreement with the concern shown by
the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein.
35. Care has also been taken where the flow of traffic is
G
--i high in a given direction to allow parking of Mobile Hoarding
Vans on the opposite c,drriageway so that no distraction or
obstruction is caused to the cone of vision of the motorists
while proceeding with the flow of traffic,. Care has also been
taken to ensure that Mobile Hoarding Vans are not parked near
H
1208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

.A ~ignals, turns, bottlenecks or any other place which may interrupt
the· smooth flow of traffic. lnspite of the above, in case of a
traffic blockage at a spot where such Mobile Hoarding Vans
are parked, it has been stated that they are asked to move to
some other location to clear such blockage.
B 36. Mr. Chinoy has referred to Section 117 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, which empowers the State Government or any
Authority authorized in this regard by the State Government, in
consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the
-area concerned, inter alia, to determine places at which motor
C vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period
of time. In the instant case, the State Government, in consultation
with the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, appears to have
invoked the provisions of the said Section to indicate the spots
at which the Mobile Hoarding Vans could be allowed to park
D and that too after a study of the flow of traffic at such given
spots. Similarly, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has also
exercised its jurisdiction under Sections 328 and 328-A of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act in granting licences for the
parking of Mobile Hoarding Vans for the display of
E advertisements. Since the au.thorities which have been
empowered to grant such licences and to specify spots for
parking, have exercised their authority, it would not be safe for
the Court to question the decision taken by the said authorities
on the basis of allegations made by an individual, without having
F anything more to rely upon, especially, in the face of the affidavits
affirmed both on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
and the Mumbai Traffic Police.
...
37 .There is, however, one sphere which possibly requires
further inquiry and that is with regard to the modification of the
G vehicles carrying the mobile hoardings from their original form
to make them suitable for display of such hoardings. Although,
the same is not directly in issue in the instant case, the said
- question has been gone into by the High Court in some detail.
However, as has been rightly submitted by Mr. Shisodia
H appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, the same is
•
SUPRI ADVT. & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. 1209
DR. ANAHITA PANDOLE & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
\ >/
within the domain of the Motor Vehicles Authorities and not the A
concern oUhe Mumbai Municipal Corporation or the Mumbai
Traffic Police. In respect of such grievance, the respondent
No.1 may take up the issue with the authorities under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, who are competent to deal with the same.
38.The High Court, in our view, in its anxiety to ensure the B
~
free movement of traffic and the safety of both mc:>torists and
pedestrians and to avert any untoward incident, has proceeded
~
I to question the decision taken by the competent authorities
without having proper material before it to do so. Contrary to
the authority vested in the State Government and the local c
i authority under the provisions of Section 117 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sections 328 and 328-A of the 1888
Act, the High Court has given directions which, in our view, are
beyond the scope of the writ petition.
--'- D
~ 39. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the
judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal and the
directions contained therein, but we also make it clear that this
...... will not prevent the respondent No.1 from moving the appropriate
'
authwities regarding the modification of vehicles as Mobile
Hoarding Vans. We also make it clear that we have not E
expressed any opinion as far as the said issue is concerned
' and it will be within the domain of the Motor Vehicles authorities ·
to take such decision in the matter as appears to them to be
fit and proper.
.. ~

40. Having regard to th~ nature of the case the parties
F

shall bear their own costs in the appeal.
D.G. Appeals allowed.

~