RAINBOW ADVERTISING Vs. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are registered advertising. agencies involved in the business of installing advertisement hoardings for their clients. After entering into agreement with the owners of the properties the petitioners had filed their applications before the respondents seeking permission for the erection of the hoardings. These applications had been considered and orders had been passed by the respondents permitting the petitioners to erect hoardings. As the term of the permission/licence originally granted under the Act is limited to one year, on the expiry of the one year period, the petitioners made applications for renewal along with the requisite fee. The respondents have declined in all these cases to renew the permission earlier granted on 6ne ground or the other. Being aggrieved by the said refusal to renew the permission or licence earlier granted, these petitions have been filed by the aggrieved petitioners

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Vishwajith Shetty for petitioners and Mr. K. N. Puttegowda for the respondent-corporation.

(3.) LEARNNED counsel Mr. Vishwajith Shetty submitted that as the case of the respondents rests on S. 443 (10) of the Karnataka municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) the benefit of deemed permission is available to these hoardings and, therefore, the respondents cannot dismantle these hoardings. On the contrary, it is the contention of learned counsel for the corpration Mr. K. N. Puttegowda that even assuming that these hoardings would be Covered by S. 443 ( 10) of the Act the period for which the renewal was sought also being over, in the absence of fresh application for renewal the hoardings in question would be unauthorised hoardings and, therefore the petitioners cannot have any valid objection in law for dismantling these hoardings