Mumbai, The Bombay High Court on Thursday disposed of petitions challenging the notices issued by state agency CIDCO after the owners of hoardings in Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA) did not follow the rules as promised to remove them. done.
The high court was hearing petitions filed by Harmesh Dilli Tanna, owner of Devangi Outdoor Advertising and Gargi Graphics, challenging the notices issued by the City Industrial Development Corporation to remove their hoardings.
These notices were issued after the Ghatkopar building collapse incident on May 22, in which 17 people lost their lives.
A division bench of Justices Somashekar Sundaresan and NR Borkar said the development control and promotion rules approved for the interim development plan of Naina contain a comprehensive framework governing the display of advertising signs.
But these rules and regulations were never taken into account, the HC said, while the ALS held that it was not possible, as a matter of law, to provide any additional protection to the petitioners' hoardings.
Since many of these hoardings were put up years ago and no action was taken on them, the HC asked the petitioners' lawyers if they would remove them themselves.
The petitioners said that after getting four weeks' time, they would remove the non-compliant hoardings.
The petitioners also said that the norms relating to the size of hoarding are outdated and should be revised.
HC said they can approach CIDCO on this issue.
Disposing of the petitions, the court said, "Representations for reconsideration of the permitted size of hoardings, if filed by the petitioners, will also be expeditiously considered by CIDCO."
The high court was hearing petitions filed by Harmesh Dilli Tanna, owner of Devangi Outdoor Advertising and Gargi Graphics, challenging the notices issued by the City Industrial Development Corporation to remove their hoardings.
These notices were issued after the Ghatkopar building collapse incident on May 22, in which 17 people lost their lives.
A division bench of Justices Somashekar Sundaresan and NR Borkar said the development control and promotion rules approved for the interim development plan of Naina contain a comprehensive framework governing the display of advertising signs.
But these rules and regulations were never taken into account, the HC said, while the ALS held that it was not possible, as a matter of law, to provide any additional protection to the petitioners' hoardings.
Since many of these hoardings were put up years ago and no action was taken on them, the HC asked the petitioners' lawyers if they would remove them themselves.
The petitioners said that after getting four weeks' time, they would remove the non-compliant hoardings.
The petitioners also said that the norms relating to the size of hoarding are outdated and should be revised.
HC said they can approach CIDCO on this issue.
Disposing of the petitions, the court said, "Representations for reconsideration of the permitted size of hoardings, if filed by the petitioners, will also be expeditiously considered by CIDCO."
