M/s. Halgo Ads vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the fourth respondent - Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bangalore Urban Zone at Annexure - ''A'' to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to erect the advertisement hoardings and to complete the balance work with regard to advertisement hoardings. Secondly, the petitioner is seeking for permission to display the advertisement in the said hoardings. The brief facts are that the petitioner who claims to be a member of the Karnataka Dalitha Industries Federation had enrolled with the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has sought permission with regard to erecting the advertisement hoarding. The permission was granted in favour of the petitioner vide the order dated 24.01.2013 at Annexure - ''E'' to the petition. One of the hoardings permitted thereto is on the banks of Hebbal lake. The petitioner, in that regard had commenced work and also had erected the advertisement hoarding. By the subsequent Corrigendum dated 15.02.2013 (Annexure - ''F''), the hoarding to be, erected on the banks of Hebbal lake was increased to four. When the petitioner had commenced the work and had also erected the skeleton of the advertisement hoarding, the petitioner was issued with the communication dated 01.08.2013 impugned at Annexure - ''A'' to the petition. By the said communication, the Deputy Conservator of Forest had referred to a communication issued by the seventh respondent herein raising objections with regard to the hoarding being erected on the banks of Hebbal lake. The petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

The seventh respondent - Lake Development Authority has filed its objection statement. The seventh respondent states in the objection statement that no specific direction had been issued to the Deputy Conservator of Forest to take up the issue with the petitioner. However, the seventh respondent is guided by the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 817/2008 and connected petitions disposed of on 1.04.2012 and the directions that have been issued therein on taking note of a report submitted by Hon''ble Justice N.K. Patil Committee. In that regard, it is contended that in any event, the BBMP or the other respondents could not have permitted erecting of hoardings in the lake development area.

In the light of the main contentions, i.e., the one advanced by the petitioner and the other advanced by the seventh respondent, it cannot be in dispute that the area wherein the hoardings are being erected is on the banks of Hebbal lake and is within the jurisdiction of the seventh respondent where they are required to maintain the lake and the areas surrounding it, based on the directions issued by this Court, on taking note of the report submitted by the Committee. Therefore, to the extent of the letter being addressed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest at Annexure - ''A'' dated 01.08.2013 and in the context of the stand adopted by the seventh respondent, the same in any event would not be relevant for the purpose of considering its validity.

On the other hand even if the said letter is quashed, the stand adopted by the seventh respondent would still be relevant for consideration. Therefore, keeping that in view, though the learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the Annexures produced along with the petition to contend that when the BBMP had permitted the petitioner and the petitioner had paid the advertisement tax in that regard, no such objection had been raised, it cannot be in dispute that though the BBMP is the Authority to issue permission to advertise, the land wherein the hoarding is to be installed would become relevant. Keeping in perspective that the Lake Development authority has jurisdiction, that would have to permit the same. Therefore, if this is kept in view, the seventh respondent, in any event would have to consider the request of the petitioner and then come to a conclusion one way or the other in accordance with law as to whether the hoarding sought to be put up by the petitioner is permissible.

Despite the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the seventh respondent cannot object to such activity, and also contending that the petitioner would be entitled to certain benefits being an Organization belonging to the Schedule Caste, the said contention cannot be considered in the instant petition. I am of the considered opinion for the reason, at the first instance, the request of the petitioner would have to be considered by the seventh respondent, keeping in view the position of law and the Regulations relating to the scope of consideration by the Lake Development Authority. On such consideration, if for any reason, the seventh respondent negatives the request of the petitioner, only in such circumstance, when the petitioner assails the same, the validity or otherwise of the action taken by the seventh respondent based on the reasons put forth would arise for consideration and in such circumstance, the said contentions could be looked into.

Hence, at this juncture, all that is necessary to be clarified is that dehors the impugned letter dated 01.08.2013, the petitioner shall make an application to the seventh respondent seeking its permission for erection of the hoarding on the lake bed area. The seventh respondent would thereafter consider the same in accordance with law and the result of the consideration be intimated to the petitioner. As already noticed, if the petitioner is thereafter aggrieved, it would be open for the petitioner to assail the same in accordance with law or in the alternative, liberty also would be available to the petitioner to approach the BBMP for redressal in that regard in so far as the non-utilization of the hoarding for which the tax had been paid. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is granted liberty of making an appropriate request with the seventh respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The seventh respondent shall consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but not later than three weeks from the date on which the representation is submitted by the petitioner.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.