By: M4G Bureau
Last updated : September 07, 2018 11:15 am
The petitioners had questioned the August 6 resolution passed by the BBMP imposing a one-year ban on outdoor advertisement as well as the August 27 order passed by the jurisdictional officers rejecting their claim that hoardings put up by them were legal
The petitioners had questioned the August 6 resolution passed by the BBMP imposing a one-year ban on outdoor advertisement as well as the August 27 order passed by the jurisdictional officers rejecting their claim that hoardings put up by them were ‘legal’. The petitioner-agencies claimed that the BBMP could not have totally banned advertisements contrary to the by-laws of 2016, which imposed specific restrictions.
The jurisdictional officers had passed the order on the responses submitted by petitioner-advertisement agencies for the public notice issued by the BBMP asking property owners and advertisement agencies to submit documents to prove that the advertisement hoardings and structures were put up by obtaining necessary permission from the BBMP.
The BBMP had earlier claimed before the court that it had not issued any new permission or renewed any permission since 2016.
It was reported by The Hindu that the judge asked the court’s registry to seek a clarification on the administrative side on whether the petitions filed by advertisement agencies should be heard by a single judge bench as per the subject roaster or by a division bench, which is monitoring the process of removal of banners, flexes and hoardings put up illegally across the city.