Dyapa Hemavathi V. The Union of India

WP/16702/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Sri Venkateshwara Outdoor Media against the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, challenging a public notice dated 12.06.2023 that ordered the removal of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area by 30.06.2023. The petitioner argued that the notice was illegal as it violated principles of natural justice and was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory procedures. The Cantonment Board defended the notice citing public safety and aesthetic concerns. The court, after examining the procedures followed and the principles of natural justice, ruled in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the lack of adherence to mandatory procedural requirements in issuing the notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724714 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS, SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA, MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI, DTC v. MAZDOOR CONGRESS, SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT, KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE OF U.P.
• Laws Referred To: Cantonments Act, 2006, CPC
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHEKURU SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Mandamus; Natural Justice; Public Safety; Writ petition; Roof Top Hoardings
• Section: 151; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR o, \"\"brJ*lBhru oF TELANGANA (Special originar -.ri;isiiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVE rwoiublieir;{,J5ff il*\"frof,f*:#'.* [ 32s21 ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO:1 6702oF 2023 AND 1. 2. Between: IANo:1OF 2023 ','.ffi:,:\",i:il[[[,Ji;,?r\".[1l?il.*ifu ttr,..1Is,\"fl:Iiffi;:lJ; F$fr r\"ffi ,#.tffi is#,{.Biii.::Tuffi:}reffi p.#.ff \" \",r\"rrl;[,:\"\": ,Jn:o,i\"j: 226...of the constitutbn.of rndia praying rhar in rhe p r.\" s eo to 1.\", \", *,.,,,' f ,,li#Fl^i -\"1t, ff:\",L:^;,il: \"l!#ffi , f 33;i\"i;:'.\",,h ?L,,.};'JJr5il,.,;#;i #fl ,tz oa aii--ol?.,in ''r,o the operation or not,.. ori.o t z.oa.zois\"iis6;ffi H\":?nseQuentially sei askJe Petition under sedjon ,:l .,cPC praying that in the circumstances stated $:# ii':' ?.':: [fl [ i,^tr* r n: t[xJ, :jl,u. co u rt mr v ot ;e ;;,\" Petitioner on rhe roor lop'or t u plili\"on #ffi;&:T,Io.:ro,*. betonsins to GR Complex aM Vayunand Secundera Complex,S bad. y.No 56,Tirumulgerry X Road, H.No Sy No 56, Opp Petrol Pump, Tirumul e X Road Secundera bad H.No 1-34-32 Chinna Thokatta, 3 Serial No Locatiofl of the Hoarding Structure Strurctures ltoarding No. of 1 1 No. 2 1No 1 lVo Bowenpally, Secunderabad New lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit treo in suplo't'\"i tn'\" o\"[itro1 int tii\"t' Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders%:i;3;:cff;ozs p\"t\"iin writ petition No: 16702 oF 2023- counser for the Petitio'\"\" tS,t\"lofftll EE?EI,$i3-ESENTTNG FoR cou nse r ro r th e Re s po nde nt No. 1 : iSl:#|EHHEL[='ffi%., * o, o, counserrorrheRespondentNo'2:i5[i5-1\"^lt;tffi Soo^*r, The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA T E Deputy behalf Rao, 7 202 1 oRD E counsel for the Kumar, tearned appearing on Mr.K.R.Koteshwar Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned appearing on behalf of Mr.Cheuuru Srinivas, petitioner on record, Mr.Gadi praveen Solicitor Generat of India, of respondent No.1, and learned Standing Counsel appearing on Board. behalf of respondent No.2 Cantonment 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows: \"To issue a Writ Direction especially in nature of Mandamus decraring the paper pubrication notice dated L2.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/tL56 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top Hoa rdings/20 23 / L 156., Counsel lea rned 3 c e Peti r ef: The petitioner is carrying on business oF outdoor advertising under the narne and style of .,Sri Venkateshwara ') Outdoor Media, R/o Flat No'309' Manasa Nest' M'l' Colony' Moulali, Hyderabad, MedchaI Malkajgiri Dist- 5ooo40 and ekin9 out his livelihood The petitioner in the course of his business had erectedroof top hoardings on the roof top of the premises i.e. 1)GRComPlex and VaYunand ComPlex' SY'No' 56' Secunderabad, 2) H'No' Sy' No'56'Opp Petrol Pump, Tirumulgerry X Road' Secunderabad and 3) H'No' l-34-32, ChinnaThokatta' New Bowenpally' Secunderabad sby maintaining all safety standards' by paying all necessary rents to the owners of the buildings and also paid all necessary taxes without any default' lt is further the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent - Secunderabad Cantonment Board had issued a General Public Notification in Deccan Chronicle News Paper dated 12'06'2023 that all the roof top hoardings along with its structures be removed immediately in view of Public safety on or before 30'06'2023' Hence the present writ petition' TirumulgerrY X Road' PE U DTH RE oRD. 4. The imPugned Public Notice dated t2'O6'2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardings/2O231t156 issued by the 2nd respondent - Cantonment Board to the petitioner, reads as under: \"PUBLIC NOTICE The Secunderabad cantonment board has resolved that all roof top hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety. Therefore, the advertisement agencies having their advertisement hoarding structures on the roof top of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are hereby directed to remove the advertisement hoarding structures before 30.06.2023, Agencies and Owners of the building failing to comply with notice will be levied with penalty as decided by the board and action will be initiated as per cantonments Act 2006. The owner of building will be personally liable for any damages caused or of life. The owners oF the respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to noted that it is responsibility of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by 30th June 2023, failing which action will be initiated as per Cantonments Act 2006 and subsequently will be liable to pay penalty as decided by Board.,, 5. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday, the 29th day of September, 2022 at 15OO hours, in particular, the relevant paras, read as under: 4 \"t151 To consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection oF banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts of unauthorized erections, etc., that is not only dangerous to the pedestrians but also eyesore giving shabby look to the public places. The matter was discussed in detail in the last Board meeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues : i) Authorised space for erecting of flexis / Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. It is proposed that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4'x 6'and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly material. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees. Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board that this matter was placed in last meeting and pended for two issues i.e. i) Authorised space for erection of flexis/Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. In this regard, the authorized places have been mentioned on the agenda side and the penalty charges are being proposed at par with GHMC areas. ) Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member, after examining the Government of Telangana GO expressed that the matter in the GHMC has been finalized after detailed discussions and after formation of committees that proposed these regulations. He opined that similar kind of exercise should be undertaken by the Cantonment Board. Further, he requested to form a committee making CEO and himself as members of the committee for this purpose. The PCB informed that there is no necessity to redo the entire exercise for the Cantonment and recommended to levy the penalty charges/rates at par with GHMC. The pCB further stated that in the earlier Board Meeting, the matter was pended lor two reasons addressed. and now both have been After the detailed discussion, the Board resolved to approve authorised spaces for erection of flexis/Banners on the agenda side and the penalty charges for unauthorized advertisement elements. The CEO is authorised to formulate a procedure for implementing the same from 01.11.2022.- The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on .Wednesday, the loth day of May, 2023 at 11OO hours, reads as under: 6 6 \"[13] To consider the note submitted by Revenue Section for \"Regulating advertisement hoardings on roof top of private buildings in respect of safety & security of the residents\". As per the said report, this office is collecting Advertisement Fees for Hoardings erected on roof tops of private buildings. The charges are being collected as per the rates fixed vide CBR No.24, Dt. 15.10.2014 as per the rates of the GHMC and later the same were revised vide CBR No.28, Dt. 19.10.2020. Further, it is to inform that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby residents and commuters durrng heavy ra ins. The Municipai Administration and Urban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement Policy vide GO MS No.68, Dt.20.04.2020 wherein it has been mentioned that adveftisement elements which are at huge heights from the ground level have collapsed a number of times, although certified as stable, thereby creating havoc. Subsequently, the Government has issued operative guidelines for granting permission only for advertisement elements below 1 5 feet f rom ground level. The revenue collected through advertisement fee from Hoardings on Roof top buildings for the year 2022-23 is Rs. 1,08,40,920/-. Therefore, keeping an view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment, the matter is placed before the Board for decision on 1 remova! of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment. The relevant papers are placed on the table. Resolutron: The CEO apprised the advertisement hoardings Board about on rooftop of regulating private buildings in respect of safety of the public. By removing these hoardings, approximately there wilt be a loss of Rs.l Crore revenue per annum to the Board, however in view of safety of the public the hoardings should be removed. Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member informed the Board that the rooftop hoardings be considered where a structural saFety report is submitted by the owners of the houses, and he said that a committee may be constituted for studying the structural safety. PCB stated that human life is more important than the revenue being generated, hence, the Board may direct the agencies to remove the hoardings in view of the safety of the public. The Board resotved that alt the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 30th June, 2023, failing which action to be taken against the violators as per the Board resotution vide CBR No. 15, dt.zg.Og.2OZz and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006,,, 8 7 A bare perusal of the G'O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O'O4'2O2O clause 2.b) reads as under: \"b) All the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted' Those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from qround n h om the allo ter hall removedimmediatelv bv GHMC. Those advertisement elements which have an o allotment riod onooln sha lbere moved immediatelva fter com Dletion of the time Deriod. Further ifanva dvertisement ele ent rs removed for whatever reason, no shiftino rmrssl n hall an h AI hal automaticallv cancel led.\" 8. The relevant sections of The Cantonment Act, 2OO6 regarding imposition of taxation, reads as under: \"( 17) the control and supervision of places where dangerous or offensive trades are carried on so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minimise any iniurious, offensive or dangerous effects arising or likely to arise therefrom; (18) the regulation of the erection of any enclosure, fence, tent, awning or other temporary structure of whatsoever material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof\"' 9 9. Learned counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioner adopted the reply affidavit in W.p.No.166t3 of 2023 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder. EL A T o N SI Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6, reads as under: \"297. Power to require buildings, wells, etc., to be rendered safe.- Where in a cantonment any building, or wall, or anything affixed thereto, or any well, tank, reservoir, pool, depression, or excavation, or any bank or tree, is in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, in a ruinous state or, for want of sufficient repairs, protection or enclosure, a nuisance or dangerous to persons passing by or dwelling or working in the neighbourhood, the Chief Executive Officer, by notice in writing may, require the owner, or part- owner or person claiming to be the owner or part- owner thereof, or, failing any of them, the occupier, thereof, to remove the same or may require him to repair, or to protect or to enclose, the same in such manner as he thinks necessary; and, if the danger is, in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, immlnent, he shall forthwith take such steps as he thinks necessary to avert the same. Section 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2O06, reads as under: 318. Service of notice, etc._ l0 (1) Every notice, order or requisitlon issued under this Act or any rule or bye- law made thereunder shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be served or presented- (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending it by post, to the person for whom it is intended; or (b) if such person cannot be found, by affixing the notice order or requisition on some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business, if within the cantonment, or by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to some adulI member or servant or his family, or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the buildings or land, if any, to which it relates' (2) When any such notice, order or i-equisition is required or permitted to be served upon an owner, lessee or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner, lessee or occupier therein, and the service thereof shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be effected either- (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending it by post, to the owner, lessee or occupier, or, if thefe are rnore owners, lessees, or occupiers than one to any one of them; or (b) if no such owner, lessee or occupier can be found, by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to the authorised agent, if any, of any such owner, lessee or occupier, or to an adult member or servant of the family of any such owner, lessee, occupier, or by causing it to be I aFfixed on some conspicuous part oF the building or land to which it relates. (3) When the person on whom a notice, order or requisition is to be served is a minor, service upon his guardian or upon an adult member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be service upon the minor.,, 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the fottowing submissions: (i) That the impugned pubric Notice is in vioration of the principles of natural justice, (ii) It is without jurisdiction, (iii) It is in violation oF statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, (iv) That the adopted a n otices. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on the submissions put forth above, prayed that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent - Cantonment Board on the other hand puts forth the following submissions: (i) The Board has pubtished a public Notice on 12.06.2023 in Shakshi (Tetugu), Deccan Chronicte (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapers, respondent - Cantonment Board had pick and choose policy and issued the 2 ( ii) ( iii) whereby the owners of the respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to be noted that it is the responsibility of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by 30.06.2023, failing which action would be initiated as per the Act, 2006. Thereafter, the individual notices were also issued to the Advertisements Agencies and owners of the buildings on which the advertisement hoardings structures are erected to remove the same before 30.06.2023. The issue regardinq regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftops of private buildings in respect of the safety and security of the i-esidence was discussed at length in the Board Meeting held on 10.05.2023 and in the said Board Meeting by taking into consideration of the New Advertisement Policy of Government of Telangana issued vide G.O.Ms.No'68 dated 20.04.2020, though there is a loss of revenue of Rs.1.00 Cr. Per annum, since human life is more important that the revenue being generated, the Board has also resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with the structures be removed, in view of the public safety on or before 30.06.2023, failing which action would be taken against the violators, and accordingly the said instruction was issued to the petitioner to remove the hoardings, keeping In view of the safety of the public. t3 (iv) The Cantonment Board is removed the hoarding structures under the provisions rooftop of the Cantonment Act and therefore there is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice on two grounds _ One is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings, and as a policy decision. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent _ Cantonment Board placed reliance on the ludgment dated Ll.01.2023 passed in W.p.Nos.36328 of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed. DISCU sroNA DCONCLUSION: 12. A bare perusal of the extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 2O2Z at 1500 hours clearly indicates two issues - Firsfly - to consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, which however, is not the subject issue in the present writ petition, and Secondly - the proposal that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4'x 6,and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of t4 sl. No. environmental friendly material and no banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees. The penalties to be imposed are as follows: VIOLATION Penalty amount (in Rs.) Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element Rs.1,00,000/- Per DaY 2 1 3 above 15 feet in hei ht from round level Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element Rs.50,000/- Per DaY below 15 feet in helgl! f_rom gro_ur1d_ level _ Use of flashing lights/Non static illumination in Rs.50,000/- Per DaY Advertisement withou t,per..Dl_s_9!on 4 Size of the Advertisement/Na me board exceeding Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per DaY 15olo Fronta e of the buildinq Use of Moving, rotating or variable message Rs.10,000/- Per DaY Advertisin Devices Operating an Advertisement element without valid Rs.50,000/- Per DaY Structu ral Stability Certifipa!e Advertisement on moving vehicle where the advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projection on the body of the vehicle Rs.10,000/- per violation Use of illuminated Advertisements with brightness Rs.10,000/- Per violation more then allowed limit 9 Wall Writings s. 1,000/- for each wall ritin 10 Wall Posters Rs.2 000/- for each oster Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs Rs.5,000/- for each banner &Cutout 13. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 clause 2.b) clearly indicates that all the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted and those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from comDleted their 6 l R qround Ievel and hav , . . 4 allotted term shall L 5 8 11 t5 be removed immediatelv bv GHMC. Those advertisement elements which have an onoo tno llotment oeriod sh ll be m V tm fter ion of me rt G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines from granting new permission for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level and also for regulating the existing advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level in GHMC area. L4. The plea of the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board that the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 was passed inconsonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 of GHMC and the Board has decided to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the petitioners and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal, if the petitioners intend to submit fresh Application for erection of advertisement elements below 15 feet from the ground level and the same would be considered and the left over license fee for the remaining period will be adjusted is untenable in view of the simple fact that G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions as indicated in x- l6 G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020,2.b) which clearly states that h adv m nt m nts w c lr d exr h n exceedi f t fro qround level a d have comoleted their allotted terms shall be removed immediate vbv GH MC. Those a dvert sement elements which have an ono and aII men riod s ot tDe hall be removed immediatelv after m Dletion of the time oeriod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue of the 'onqoino allotment eriod' (as stated in the counter aFfidavit at para 7). 15. A bare perusal oF Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 clearly indicates a standard procedure to be followed by the Cantonmeht Board pertaining to 'issuance of notice' and Section 318 deals with 'service of notice'. In the present case admittedly as borne on record and even as admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed. Because even in the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent at Para 11 it is specifically stated that a Public Notice had been issued and admittedly as borne on record the mandatory t7 procedure under Section 2g7 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been foilowed. 16. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned public Notice dated 12.06.2023 clearly indicates that it is a Final notice issued to the petitioners and not a Show cause Notice and the same indicates that as per the resolution of the Board it had been decided that all the rooFtop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of the public safety. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or before 30th June, 2023, failing which action will be taken by way of revying penarty and as per the provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006 very clearly indicates that the mandatory procedure under sections 2g7 and 31g of the cantonments Act has not been followed. It is also in fact observed in order dated 27.06.2023 passed in W.p.No.16337 of 2023 as under: \"Notice before admission. Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia takes notice for respondent No.1. Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Secunderabad No.2. This Writ notice, dated requiring the Cantonment, takes notice for respondent Petition is filed challenging the 12.06.2023, issued by respondent advertisement agencies having public No.2, their 18 writ Petition is Sri K.R. for resPondent No'2-Board and until individual notices owners of the advertiseme action would be taken solel filed. Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel advertisement hoarding structures on the rooftop of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are directed to remove the same on or before 30'06'2023 and further it is also indicated that if the same is not done before the said date, action will be initiated as per the Cantonments Act' 2006 and they were liable to pay penalty as decided by the-Board. Aggrieved by the said public notice' the present submitted that unless are issued to respective nt hoardings, no further y basing uPon the Public notice, dated 12'O5'2023' ln the circumstances' post the matter on 11 '07'2023 for filing counter-affidavit' Pending further orders' respondent No'2 is directednottotakeanyfurtheractionpursuantto the public notice, dated 12'O6 '2023' However' this order will not be come in the way of respondent No.2-Board to take dhY' appropriate action' in accordance with law' by following due process of law.\" L7. The submission of the learned counsel Sri K'R'Koteshwar Rao, learned standing counser appearing for the 2nd respondent - Cantonment Board' recorded in the order daled 27'06'2023 passed in W'P'No 16 337 of 2023 clearly indicates that the reco rd. l9 assurance of the learned counsel before the Court had not been adhered to and that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated L2.06.2023 exercise of issuing individual notices ancl following the mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 2g7 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followed, as borne on 18. ft is true that this Court in its Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.p.No.36328 of 2022 and batch at para 23 observed as under: \"23. As per the above G.O,, the intention of the respondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisement use is considering the public safety, road safety, aesthetic character and visual appearance of the city. In this regard, the G.O. imposes restriction on the advertisement elements. The restrictions that are imposed by the respondents on the height, distance and all the aspects are only to achieve the object of public Aood, safety and the aesthetics of the city. The G.O. impugned satisfies the proportionality test and there ts no illegality in imposing the restrictions. ,, ak si Th c eo is n G n b s rV o o rn tn r 20 is s b e u o d e r s n fl t o 2 h It rn e o G.O M e n h ts u a 8d e 20.04. t r nt wr t le rvi la n a 7 n 18 n a n e tA e d e aanl t s s2 t r t t 4 2 2 e a vto ti no G.o.M 8d d2 2.b). hi o rto s ofn ural st a le rv ol t f s n c s hi o f n f r o to h h otice ior t s n rso t toh r e ti e n ent n rto o 1 e t h e h u o n mo ed3 o.20 n t et 15b t e2 o r r nd nd r n n h il n s e a b r n r n r Thi u t r re eo d o u It r, m und b t r ft eo e r rv u n ru le. o n o m n c o rd is e n o t r r 2t ue s e r ts b ha cial an Re nton n B c nn ide at th h fth tition ith earln th eti lv n r to e to reDresent hls or herc aset he rk t m nne nown to law. hi u of o fir ha no fin whi ha n ad w ut vidi a o it arrn the on r wh ev c hel ed la n IN on eh of r on ts e a ard oce un e 7a 8of canton ent Act. 20o6. 21. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (20O9) 12 SCC 4O in Umanath pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras lO & 11 observed as under : Para 10 : The adherence to principtes of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi- judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known do as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notace is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice ofthe kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party shoutd be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained, significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in L215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the \"Magna Carta\". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to \"vacate, interrogate and adjudicate\". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: (ER p. 420). \"Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?\" i 2l Since then the principle has been chiseiled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. Para 11 : \"Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual agaanst the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice,,. 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2023) G Supreme Court Cases 1 in .'STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS,, at para 85 observed as under : \"85. Fairness in action requires that procedures which permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just, fair, and reasonable. The principles of natural justice have a universal application and constitute an important facet of procedural propriety envisaged under Article 14. The rule of audi alteram partem is recognised as being a part of the guarantee conta ined in Article 14. 21 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tulsiram Patel has categorically held that violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. The Court held that any State action in breach of natural justice implicates a violation of Article 14: (SCC p. 476, para 95) \"95, The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept oF equality which ls the subject-matter of that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article I4'. therefore, a violation of a principle of natural iustice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 74, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down ' The principtes of naturat justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of \"itate\" in Article 72, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially.\" 25 23. fn a decision of a three_Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1991) 1 Supreme court cases 664 in *SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA,,, the issue was whether the Central Government was required to comply with the requirements of audi arteram pattem before it took over the management of an industriat undertaking under Section 1g_AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J'speaking for the majority consisting of himserf and D.A. Desai, J. laid down the following principles of taw: (SCC p. 689, para 44) observed as under: \"44.In short, the general principle _ as distinguished From an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post_ decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi a lteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre_ decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as 26 excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative progress or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play 'must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands\" The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, J', the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise\"' 24. In \"MANGILAL V. STATEOF M.P.. reDorte ln (2004) 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principles of naturat justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard' In other words' a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to observe the principles of natural justice where substanttal rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp'453-54, para 1O) observed as under: \"7O. Even if a statu ,s s,Ient a d the are no ,ve the o h les out t need re h the hos h ili d t nde tdb wro ,ns t rties 27 L, I a b e e at e e an k I I I en w tr fo tak o r e n The principles cherished about the t vt of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statutet unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal,/court of a judicial or quasi_ judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve reguirements of natural justice and fair ptay to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice iffespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a principle. Where the statute is silent obseruance of the principtes of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptivel unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. fs tm r s s e u e s onl na n a t Prin n n la but t. I, eso ltt db law val .Th n I ma are m co to an end andnota end in themselves.\" 25. In *CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI\"' reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 5O1, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14. Similarly, in \"DTC v' MAZDOOR CONGRESS\" reported in (1991) Supp (1) ScC 600, the Apex Court observed that ttre rule of audi alteram partem enforces the equality clause in Article 14' Therefore, any administrative action which violates the rule of audi alteram partem is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. This Court opines that administrative proceedings which entail significant civil consequences must be read consistent with the principle of natural justice to meet the requirement of Article 14. 26. In \"SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT\". reported in (2OOB) 14 SCC page 151, a two-ludge Bench of this Court was called upon to decide whether an opportunity of being heard has to be granted to an assessee before any direction could be issued under Section 142(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for 29 14 of the opportunity special audit of the accounts oF the assessee. This Court held that since the exercise of power under Section 142(2_A) of the Income Tax Act leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee, the requirements of observing the principles of natural justice is to be read into the said provisions. 27. In \"KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE OF U.p.-, reported in (2011) 13 SCC page 733, wherein it is held that: \"the Court dealt with a challenge to the validity of Rule 633(7) of the Uttar pradesh Excise Manual which allowed the imposition of a penarty for breach oF the conditions of a bond without expressly issuing a show_cause notice. D.K.Jain, l. speaking on behalf of the two_Judge Bench held that a show-cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of being heard should be afforded before an order under Rule 633(7) is made. The Court hetd that the rule would be open to challengefor being violative of Article Constitution unless the requirement of an to show cause is read into it. The Court observed: (SCC p. 743, paras 30 & 32) \"3O. Having considered the issue, framed in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted tegal principtes in regard to the applicability of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of l0 a show- cause notace should be opportunity of hearing should be person concerned before an order direction under sub-rule (7) of Rule 633 of the Excise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that issued and an afforded to the under the said Rule is made, notwithstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunity of being heard.\" 32. In our view, therefore, if the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the said Rule' an action thereunder would be open to challenge as viclative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the power conferred on the competent authority under the provision is arbitrary \" 2A. In the present case Procedural Impropriety is evident and borne oo r€c.rrd since the standard procedure faid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6 had not been adhered to by the 2nd respondent' ts led ww n d rl or s hin be n rm r h b o in that manner or not at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs' Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2O17) SCC Online Hyd 426)' - B) The Divi ch of o ini e tda 4.1().202 s L s E er urt Owne id t Welf ct ti n o 2 2L Onlin c 422 referring to Taylor Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426t Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor reported Parbhani Transport Regional Transport (1936) L.R.63 rnd Ap37Z and reported in AIR t96O Authority, SC 8O1 at under: tn Co-operative Socaety Ltd., Vs. The Aurangabad & Ors., para 13 observed as \"rt is that certain thing in rn a particular manner or not performance are where a a certain power is given way, the thing todoa must h done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarity forbidden. Hence when a statute requires a particular thing to be done manner, it must be done in that at all and other methods of necessarily forbidden. This Court too, as adopted this maxim. This rule provides that an expressty laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in any other way. I I 2 u a s t he s as a d te o of at d n IN era at n 32 Court the varaous Judqments as ln down bv the Aoex fer de ra da ove and in eli ht a sion a arrived at as above the Wri Peti ion i disc ved for. The rest)on No.2 is dir ted not allowedas Dra n further ton u rsua n to th n Pub IC o-ta Notice vid N CB RS Rooffo 1{oardan o2 ed 12.6-2023. However, it is !ea rlv observed 1156 dat tt ord r wil not me n the wa of }nd t res ndent - Ca nm n Bo rd to ke n a o rt rdance to law er the rovtslons of as D action rn acco Ca ruTlen A 2 b f llowin hes nda du erta nrn noti as vid under Secti ns nd 31 of h Can onm Ac 20 H weve 297 th shall be no order s to costs. To, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall standelq€ed. S /ffRUE COPY// D,. N. CHANDRA SEKH ASSISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFTCER ; \",ls\"g *t* nrysliqm's,rffiffi ,tat# ;' J: t. tSLtt ,tsRl cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dv' sollctroR GENERAL oF 6. Two CD CoPies BN GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1111212023 ORDER WP.No.16702 oI 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ta o 1HE SI4 14: ( + C. ( > C': .t' ;O 1() 2 3 APB 20X .t O6, PATC r(9 J + "