High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Star Advertising vs Bangalore Developemnt Authority on 22 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Star Advertising vs Bangalore Developemnt Authority on 22 August, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
1N *1m~; HIGH (.'.()L¥R'1'0F KARNATAKA A1' BANGALO1§E.

Dated this the 12"' day of August, 2008  _     L:   " 
ms: HOMBLE MR 11131101: H::L£IVA.!)1' G»;    

Writ mam ' 10939 /     (BoA';f  - . «. " 

Mfs Star Advmtising 

1110, 11* Floor, Barton Canim _

By its Proprietor-- M Mani  _  t  " V  _ Petitimaa

vishwajimsheuy,,%Aa:g;4)_M% ., a V   

1      .« .,ty
'1'  K-If was
 20 -  its 

 2 

. ' " 'N?-R Square, 
* .. _ By in:  Recpondenzs

E"   Adv. fer R};

St!  N Pmzgégéwéa, Aév, for R2)

mi Wm Peiition is filcd under ArL226!227 of the Constitutkm

VA  to direct 2"' respondent and his staifto  tht: petitioner to
'_'-displaythcadvenisemmlsonflwkmsfitboxemaulglowsignbumdseauned
 dkgflwmimdaalefiyowrgem.

T1mWntPetinon wmmgmfmfiflmmmyfleaung iimda"y,&|e

 Courtmzde the folIow'mg:



ORDER

Petitioner has sought for directing the 2″

pcmemner to display adve11isement on the

erectcd on the fly avers; eiimct tin: 2″‘

adverusm” ‘ 2 bonds and slow sign By an}

pet1ta”oncr on the same on . of
compemu’mx (images to the ” safiemd by him in
rww°*’fi~=mes=1m€=m-ht’

be a. agency having emoim
itself on $0 cazry out me buaincss of

aavemsmg, Jbe paymg’ aivafisernmt tax to the

_ mxayea by it and me pamom is neat
2″‘ mspondcm towards a taxes. Th: 1′

dewkrp and nmfmtain me bmtiscayc below the fly

over: and gg;v§:¢a;um¢m’T tn: the same on me ham’ cannula,’ await: and

respect offiw fly (was. As per the agccmem, wocesdul

provided by the am for a pmod of five years and the

ufhiddcrrwasallowedttxinstall 4×6fia6wr&ing hoanitimmfltboxns); 2:4

fiadvcrtiscmentso1z&lecu’icalpolea{g£9wsignbo@8)3!K1li30

W,

advertisement with BDAQ logo can me rear side of ‘ BIV5_jA

and aim altar having paid tax to the tune 0i;A:i?.$.fi;+fi36$?#v_.._ §Iltd. ‘V

obtained’ pesmm ion,hadimtalledth;V-.s§§ii~~,boatxis_

Petitioner is also said to havcv the’ taxti”oi*v 3211:. 2007-08
and also the demand draft was fame for the yam”

2°08-09» mwa-am aw   «mm by me
Cmpo1atmn'    "  as per aamxum F,
  Cospomm hm removed the
iranslit     causing damagc to me pdititmcr.

Further mkm-.& demand ma sent by them 113:” renewal
for back on rectmeamy mung ma: they

“rm f the “”” “imam mm’ the BDA as me fly overs are being

Lmam- and aim there is no licanse obtained’ tmm’ the

stated mat the act of the respondent is with malafides

§eai:éon«haapa:dasumot’Rs.1 cm maktwto the am andspunt

[ – gs,1,'{(: mafia: the purpose ofadvertising and maintaining the landscape,

to the unilaterai ac: ofthe Cotposztion, is has mm heavy toss and the

displaynudebyfimpefitionerisaihrduepeunissim1offl:eCoa)oratkmmd

aboafierhav’mg¢ntered’mtoag’eemcmwiti2fineBBAtmderBOTsys£an

andalsoaiierkxavingpaid1iw§_:3otmtfnrape:iedot’fiv:yczs.

Sri Puitegowda appeuing far the Cotpotatim has filed statement of
objections along with amexure R1 — application and –

acknowiedgcment for havmg rammed the amount which ;was’ we

Corpotation. It is stated that the petitioner ought to have b *

for obtaining Iiccme for such display of 7

perxnission from the EDA for fur£her> A it

is submitted” that since’ the of
Kamataka Municipality Act itsfiae been taken

by the mspondem agams’ tthe ‘ ” = iflggaiity.

A,»°°0rd1ns %%%% submitted on par with the

avexment$’méds: h statement of objecnamm .

.. respomient BDA submimd that petitioner has

b¢:§fiTavqai’d§citlxe::§c*nuactaperflaeEOTatadalsocoiiectedlxc amoxmtfora

pefi ‘. ” ‘V6t’t§éci.{é¢_ The tender is for five years and it is mnewed every

‘ year

A. Itisseenonthegxnmdofteclmicalitythatnoiicemeisobtaixxedand

is produced by the petitioner for having chained pezmission

.1ir$n:flwBDAmmmaemralot’meaywmcm, Iherespondentauflsorityhaa

,5?”

§

5
taken action and accondingto the rewondent Corporation, the removed ofthc

Bonds was due to non-compliance; It is seen as on the

Corporation hm taken action to remow the Boards wiziefiz.

displayed as a matter d’ t which the

vnme” ofthc agreement with thé -mm on €i:e$JE£:Vsi§’e$:E’:0T-;’ Lft ‘czsu5d % b@=.’

respoadent EDA as weli as the C0,,» h+,,,,,»J :5 ‘ 1: a s

subatantial compliance, well in
advance before the expiry oi'”a’:¢_’ _ muwxme F is the

permission gI*antedvby ih¢’ ” accepted the amount

of Rs.2,4:?;3§§sz;T.1§jgr,r;etz${aa~:ea”* .j;9.20§7″aen& there was a ren-ma: of license
for the péréod of ‘mné’y§a::;% letter and 7.9.2007 my all

givenbythcCm’poration, ‘sto eyqzaire on

. 9.; bgxaee A6]V9.:;oos. ” objection raised by the counsel for tin:

is, alflxough the concurrence was given by flue

cc’. – §g.si§s$ii’Vappnca::on’ is tiled in me fauna: to mam’ ‘ me licmse.

–V has paid the amount to the saahfaction of the

K ” ‘ ‘ it was for the respondent Corporanon’ to chm’ the peminner ta

.’ ifso necessary, or to issue a notice £3: this regani. However, it

T kthecaseoftite respondentCorporau’onthatithas notcomentedtbrthcact

” eftiue petitioner which is unticttaken by the petitioner as per the agrecment

:${\2/

witiz the BDA. Nomhenm the respondent Authority new

notice tmilaterallyg without noticing the date of

glow sign boards md translit boxes which

to the petitioner. Even the anwm~:–eo_};«a:ch god’ to fie
Corporation by way of 2003-09 is
shown to be well in advmce. did not file me name
i:1ti1efin’mat,itwf§raotnot_ yogi’ amoamt. Ifreally
me aim for the cmpesmm
to call form in an founat. The
have been appmpriaied to the
account of: ofzhny and sheer negligence, the

ofliei_{a i§ of the have played nfmehief and returned

1′ wifimgu application of mind, on technicaiities. The wise mason

taken by the respondent Corporation in stead of

A – ._ – ceiiei
rettn~ning*Iise draii to the petitioner, would have been 9.43% the

pl Tmf submit me Qplication ‘m the fm-mat prescribed. In stead, this

, 5-§€M_,…g

power has caused loss to the peiitioner by way seaming the

material which were fixed, finat too without proper notice and

without intimating the petitioner properly. This act of the odeni

Cmpmatiotxofiicmisnmmlycmweddmmgemflmpefltbnerbxmreilmm
WW’

% Sd/’P

upenthemzmnerflrecezporationofiicialsarefixnciiming. Itishightimethe
officials are properly waned ibr negligence on their part. Further, the
aificiais concemed for of me sig boards, without prior. noticc to

me petm’ ‘om, have to shell awn Rs.l0,()0()!– tram’ their salary”

amount shall be remitted to the account of the High 4_

Authority, Bangalum.

Fuxthar. it is for the peuuoner’§§ Ezghnait’ amxcatiossi 3′ 41:. ”

is fizsisted by the respondent :9 a matter at’

Q/£2-\.,-Z’ ;m:i:,»m. gm iéfiri./9é__€”s:/”-.””#”””‘V”‘.:f: Ev
formality. It 13 also for the rasgiognd’-:_mt Eo restore all the

removals; to or due to hadvatawe.

With petition is allowed.

Iudgé