Bombay HC orders demolition of 2 oversized, illegal hoardings in Bhiwandi

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court last week directed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to pull down two illegally erected oversized hoardings at Surai village in Bhiwandi.

The division bench of justice MS Sonak and justice Kamal Khata also imposed “costs” or fines on the hoardings’ owner, Pawan Advertising, for suppressing material facts. A third judge is likely to determine the quantum of the costs, as justice Sonak felt it should be ₹5 lakh, while justice Khata insisted it should be higher— ₹25 lakh.

The order, which was made available on July 29, came on a petition filed by Pawan Advertising, which had approached the high court challenging MMRDA’s July 11 order rejecting the advertising agency’s plea for retaining the hoardings. Advocate Meenal Chandnani, who represented the petitioner firm, submitted that the hoardings were put up with the village panchayat’s permission, adding that it had complied with the sizes indicated in the panchayat’s no-objection certificates.

However, advocate Kavita N Solunke, who represented MMRDA, argued that the panchayat is not the competent authority to grant permission to erect hoardings. The petitioner needed to get MMRDA’s permission as it was the special planning authority for the area, the agency said, adding that the size of the hoardings was also beyond the maximum permissible limit, which is 40x40 feet.

As there was a dispute regarding the size of the hoardings, the court had ordered a joint inspection by MMRDA and a representative of the advertisement agency, which revealed that one was 81.5x40 feet in size and the other was 125x40 feet. The hoardings were also “hardly seven feet and nine feet away from Mankoli-Mothagaon Road and, consequently, would prove to be a danger to the public commuting on this road,” the court said, as it rejected the petition.

The judges felt it necessary to impose a fine on the petitioner because it had made “false” statements in the petition regarding the hoardings’ size. “...based on such false statements, interim relief was obtained because we did not permit the MMRDA to proceed with the demolitions until the position at the site was verified,” said the court.

As the judges differed on the quantum of the costs, the matter is now referred to the chief justice, who may assign the matter to a third judge to fix the amount.

‘Costs must act as genuine deterrent’

Justice Khata insisted that the cost should be high and act as a deterrent. “The costs imposed must be viewed from the perspective of the lawbreaker, ensuring they are high enough to make anyone think twice before engaging in unlawful activities. If not, they serve no purpose other than to undermine the enforcement of the law. In my opinion, a cost of ₹25,00,000 is not just appropriate but necessary to convey the seriousness of the situation and to act as a genuine deterrent,” he said.