Saturday, June 22, 2024

Home » OOH News » Bombay HC issues notice to Guju Ads to remove hoardings at Juhu

Bombay HC issues notice to Guju Ads to remove hoardings at Juhu

By M4G Bureau - March 07, 2018

Petitions filed with the High Court cited that Guju Ads had erected the hoardings in Juhu area without obtaining due permissions from BMC, traffic department, and environment and coastal regulation department

The Bombay High Court has issued a notice to Guju Ads for the removal of six media structures containing 12 hoardings in Juhu area after a petition was filed in the court by Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd along with other two writ petitions that cited that the hoardings were erected without any approval from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). Airports Authority of India (AAI) had given its permission for the hoardings to be put up.

A division bench of Justices S.C. Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangare heard the writ petitions filed by the hotel and Selvel Publicity claiming that the hoardings put up by Guju Ads did not have requisite permissions from all concerned authorities.

Palm Grove Beach Hotels in its petition cited that the hoardings had come up in what was a vehicle parking area and that the outdoor structures were blocking the ventilation of the hotel. It was also cited that the hoardings were erected in violation of the petitioner the said hoarding attempted to be erected in violation of the CRZ norms.

The petition also contained a sketch map showing the location of the petitioner hotel and other landmarks nearby including Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj statue, a garden, the public parking lot and a footpath.     

Senior advocate Kiran Jain who appeared on behalf of Selvel Publicity stated that the hoardings were put up by Guju Ads without obtaining due permission from BMC, traffic department, environment and coastal regulation department. He further informed the court that despite a previous court order asking all parties involved to maintain a status quo, work on constructing the hoardings had gone on resulting in contempt of court order.

When the bench asked about the permissions, the BMC and the police department said they had not given any permission for the construction of the hoardings. However, the counsel for Guju Ads argued that they had secured rights to construct hoardings from AAI and hence there was nothing wrong on their part. Pertinent to note that AAI did not file an affidavit on record  in response to the petition.

Learned  counsel Shroff appearing on behalf of AAI has maintained that AAI would be bound by the directions issued by the Court and is ready and willing to abide by the position of law as would be laid down by the Court. 

Various attempts were made to get a comment from Guju Ads on this matter but didn’t receive any reply on this matter.



You May Also Like

Have You Say