M.C.D. Vs. Delhi Outdoor Advertisers’ Association and Others
EmailAppeal: I.A. No. 1 in C.A. No. 10421 of 1996
Petitioner: M.C.D.
Respondent: Delhi Outdoor Advertisers’ Association and Others
Apeal: I.A. No. 1 in C.A. No. 10421 of 1996
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, C.J., S. SAGHIR AHMAD & B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 02, 1997
Head Note:
MUNICIPALITIES
Hoardings removed – Contract with Municipal Corporation – Period of contract-end – Need for show cause notice. Held once the period of the contract comes to an end by efflux of time the right to advertise ceases and the hoardings ought to be removed. No question of the removal being preceded by a show cause notice.
Hoardings removed – Contract with Municipal Corporation – Period of contract-end – Need for show cause notice. Held once the period of the contract comes to an end by efflux of time the right to advertise ceases and the hoardings ought to be removed. No question of the removal being preceded by a show cause notice.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appeal is taken on board.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since the hoard-ings have been removed, the grievance of the MCD does not survive so far as that aspect is concerned. However, the learned counsel for the MCD contends that the Division Bench of the High Court was wrong in holding that before removal of the hoardings a show-cause notice is a must. We think that the learned counsel for the MCD is on a firm ground so far as this contention is concerned because once the period of the contract comes to an end by efflux of time the right to advertise ceases and the hoardings ought to be removed and there is no question of the removal being preceded by a show-cause notice. Therefore, the observation of the Divi-sion Bench to this extent does not appear to be correct. The appeal will stand disposed of with this modification in the order. There will be no order as to costs.
1. The appeal is taken on board.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since the hoard-ings have been removed, the grievance of the MCD does not survive so far as that aspect is concerned. However, the learned counsel for the MCD contends that the Division Bench of the High Court was wrong in holding that before removal of the hoardings a show-cause notice is a must. We think that the learned counsel for the MCD is on a firm ground so far as this contention is concerned because once the period of the contract comes to an end by efflux of time the right to advertise ceases and the hoardings ought to be removed and there is no question of the removal being preceded by a show-cause notice. Therefore, the observation of the Divi-sion Bench to this extent does not appear to be correct. The appeal will stand disposed of with this modification in the order. There will be no order as to costs.
