PAWAN ADVERTISING Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This opinion seeks to resolve the difference that has arisen between the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Division Bench that heard Writ Petition No.10220 of 2024 on the quantum of costs to be imposed on the petitioner. In the said writ petition, an order dtd. 11/7/2024 passed by the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority- MMRDA rejecting the application made by the petitioner for retention of hoardings installed by it was under challenge. By its order dtd. 24/7/2024, the Division Bench proceeded to dismiss the writ petition after recording a finding that the hoardings installed by the petitioner exceeded the permissible limits as laid down in the statutory guidelines. There was a consensus between the learned Judges that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, there was a disagreement between them as regards the quantum of costs. Hon'ble M. S. Sonak, J was of the view that imposition of costs of Rs.5,00,000.00 would be appropriate. However, Hon'ble Kamal Khata, J was of the view that the costs to be imposed could not be insignificant or trivial. Costs ought to be imposed so as to act as a genuine deterrent. He was of the view that costs of Rs.25,00,000.00 ought to be imposed.

(2.) Ms. Minal Chandnani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the order dtd. 24/7/2024 passed in the writ petition was the subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.20943/2024.

(3.) Ms. Kavita Solunke, learned counsel appearing for the MMRDA on the other hand supported the imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.25,00,000.00. Referring to the observations made by the Division Bench in its order dtd. 24/7/2024, it was submitted that firstly, there was no question of obtaining any permission from the Grampanchayat as it was the MMRDA which was the Competent Authority to grant permission for erection of hoardings. On the strength of the permission granted by the Grampanchayat, the petitioner proceeded to erect the hoardings which far exceeded the permissible limits. It was further pointed out that the Division Bench had recorded a finding that the petitioner had made false statements in the writ petition and that it had also suppressed correct facts. The writ petition was dismissed for suppression and misstatement of correct facts. Since the petitioner had made commercial gains from such conduct, the Division Bench was of the view that exemplary costs ought to be imposed. It was submitted that costs of Rs.25,00,000.00 had been rightly imposed in view of the seriousness of the situation and with a view that such costs would act as a genuine deterrent. In the facts of the case, the amount of costs of Rs.5,00,000.00 as imposed was on a lower side and the view imposing costs of Rs.25,00,000.00 on the petitioner ought to be upheld.