MUMBAI HOARDING OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. All Respondents waive service. There are Affidavits in Reply from the MCGM and the principal contesting Respondent added by amendment, the 9th Respondent ("Supri Advertising").

(2.) These are the Great Hoarding Wars. The Petitioners have an older form of outdoor advertisements, on billboards or hoardings. Supri Advertising has more modern hoardings on cantilevers. The Petitioners want Supri Advertising's cantilevered hoardings gone. They say, in essence, that Supri Advertising's cantilevered hoardings are not permitted, and actually forbidden, by the controlling municipal policy and guidelines and are unauthorised; and such hoardings, cantilevered as they are over footpaths or carriageways, are inherently hazardous and pose a danger to the public.

(3.) The 1st Petitioner is an association of which the 2nd Petitioner is a member. The 1st Petitioners' members are all owners of billboards or hoardings in Mumbai.