ANURAG MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance which has been urged before this Court in the public interest litigation is in regard to the defacement of public signboards erected on the streets in Allahabad. The petitioner has annexed photographs to indicate that public signboards are defaced across the city by pasting notices and advertisements of private persons. The signboards outside the High Court are no exception and are victim of such practices, particularly when elections to the representative associations of the Bar are held. The petitioner submits that signboards near important hospitals are also defaced, thereby defeating the purpose of providing information through them to the members of the public. The grievance is that the Public Works Department, Allahabad Development Authority and the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad do not take any action.

(2.) The Nagar Nigam has appeared in these proceedings through learned counsel and has filed a counter affidavit. For completing the record, we allow the impleadment of the Nagar Nigam. The amendment shall be carried out during the course of the day.

(3.) The issue which is posed before the Court is not as much about the want of statutory authority as much as it is about enforcement. Now, insofar as the statutory authority is concerned, the Nagar Nigam has adopted bye laws which have been framed under Section 298 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 19591. The Corporation adopted these bye laws on 18 September 2015 and they have been gazetted on 16 January 2016. These bye laws are called the IMAGE Bye law 12 specifically confers a power upon the Nagar Nigam to remove any advertisement or billboard which has been erected in violation of the bye laws. Bye law 28 empowers the Nagar Nigam to recover the cost of removal from the offender. This being the position, the issue is not of an absence of power but of enforcing the provisions of law. Moreover, as a consideration of many aspects pertaining to the defacement of public or civic amenities would establish, a large part of the responsibility must also lie with an informed citizenry. An awareness has to be generated among the citizens in regard to the need to maintain the sanctity of signboards erected by the civic authorities on public streets. These are meant to inform the members of the public and to furnish them directions in regard to important landmarks. Where the signboards are themselves defaced, the purpose of erecting them is defeated. For some, the signboards become an avenue for the erection of unauthorized advertisements. The photographs which have been annexed by the petitioner to the petition are a matter of record and judicial notice can be taken of the manner in which unauthorized billboards continue to proliferate across the cities in the State. The civic authorities must take immediate enforcement action. Where there are sufficient enabling provisions in the governing legislation or, as the case may be, in the case of the Allahabad Nagar Nigam in the bye laws, these provisions must be strictly enforced. Hence, the first direction that we issue is that the Allahabad Nagar Nigam shall take necessary steps for enforcing the bye laws of 2015. Enforcement must also be in the matter of imposing a penalty on whoever is responsible for setting up the signboards. A presumption can well be drawn that where a billboard has been set up on a public signage in the name of an individual or organization, that individual or organization has implicitly or explicitly authorized the use of his or its name. The Municipal Corporation must proceed to impose a penalty in such cases and enforce recovery action in accordance with law.