After the Bombay High Court refused to grant protection to illegal giant hoardings in the Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA) from demolition by CIDCO, the owners undertook to pull them down themselves within four weeks and seek fresh permission from the planning authority.
A vacation bench of Justices Nitin Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan has said that one the petitioners makes an application for putting up a complaint outdoor sign or hoarding in NAINA, CIDCO sh profess the same in accordance with law, preferably within 45 days.
The HC heard over 15 petitions by advertising agencies who were issued notices by CIDCO to pull down their hoardings within 24 hours or face demolition.
The court, on Monday, has asked CIDCO whether it would frame a “reasonable policy” for hoardings.
On Thursday, Senior advocate GS Hegde, appearing for CIDCO, said CIDCO became a planning authority for NAINA in 2013 and it follows development control and promotion regulations (DCPR). Regulation 30 deals with comprehensive framework governing the display of advertising signs on buildings and on lands in the NAINA. As per the regulation, hoardings abutting highway or a road which is 50m wide, can have a maximum display of 3 m X 10 m. The total height of the hoarding, including pillars, can be a maximum of nine meters.
Hegde pointed out that some of the hoardings that were issued notices were 40 x40 feet and some 50 x 40 feet. “These are all in excess of 3 m height,” he added.
While the petitioners claimed they have permission from respective gram panchayats, Hegde underlined that as per the 2013 GR all other planning authorities would cease to operate.
Justice Borkar asked, “If CIDCO is the planning authority, where is the occasion to take permission from gram panchayat?’’ The bench notes that the hoardings have “hitherto come up and have stood for long, with neither side having dealt with the true import of Regulation 30 and compliance with the same” “Consequently, it would not be possible as a matter of law, to provide any further protection to the hoardings. It is settled law that the equity can supplement the law but cannot supplant the law,” the bench noted in its order.
Since many of these hoardings have been erected many years ago and no enforcement action has been taken against them until now, the judges, in the “interest of equity”, asked petitioners whether they would bring the hoardings down on their own, “without further public expenditure or potential injury to private property” that would be occasioned in the course of any demolition.
The petitioners then sought four weeks time to bring down the “ non-compliant hoardings and apply to CIDCO for a compliant erection of hoardings”.
Following the request, the HC also permitted the petitioners to make a representation to CIDCO to revisit outdated permissible dimensions of hoardings. The Hc has asked CIDCO to consider the same expeditiously.
The bench has clarified that of the hoardings remain non-compliant, “CIDCO shall be at liberty to take action in accordance with law”.
