Advertisment

Will remove illegal hoardings in Navi Mumbai in 4 weeks: Companies to Bombay HC

The HC was hearing petitions by Devangi Outdoor Advertising and Harmesh Dilip Tanna, proprietor of Gargee Graphics challenging notices issued by the City and Industrial Development Corporation to remove their hoardings

author-image
BestMediaInfo Bureau
New Update
HoardingsonHingnainNagpur
Listen to this article
0.75x 1x 1.5x
00:00 / 00:00

New Delhi: The Bombay High Court on Thursday disposed of pleas challenging notices issued by the state agency CIDCO after the owners of hoardings in Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA) that did not comply with the norms promised to remove them.

The HC was hearing petitions by Devangi Outdoor Advertising and Harmesh Dilip Tanna, proprietor of Gargee Graphics challenging notices issued by the City and Industrial Development Corporation to remove their hoardings.

The notices were issued on May 22, in the aftermath of the Ghatkopar hoarding collapse incident that claimed 17 lives.

A division bench of justices Somasekhar Sundaresan and N R Borkar noted that the Sanctioned Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Interim Development Plan of NAINA contains a comprehensive framework governing the display of advertising signs.

But these rules and regulations were never heeded, observed the HC, while also holding that it was not possible, as a matter of law, to provide any further protection to the petitioners' hoardings.

Since many of these hoardings had been installed years ago and faced no action, the HC asked the petitioners' counsels whether they would take them down on their own.

The petitioners submitted that given four weeks, they would demolish non-compliant hoardings.

The petitioners also submitted that the norms regarding the size of hoardings were outdated, and should be revised.

The HC said they could approach CIDCO over the issue.

"The representation on revisiting the permitted size of the hoardings, if filed by the petitioners, shall also be expeditiously considered by CIDCO," the court said while disposing of the petitions.

Advertisment