2002 (4) TMI 894 - SC - Indian Laws

Action against the respondent under Section 328 or 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) in regard to their sign boards of petroleum pumps. Held that - On a careful consideration of the approach and methodology of the construction adopted by the High Court, we are of the view that serious infirmity was allowed to be crept into the process due to unwarranted and unjust dissection of Section 328 (3) of the Act and import into the words meanings totally uncalled for and beyond their context, defeating to a great extent the very purpose and aim of enactment of the provision by the legislature. The statutory definition of the expression sky-sign ordains it to mean, any word, letter, model, sign, device or representation in the nature of an advertisement , announcement or direction , supported on or attached to any of the things specified upon or over any land or building or structure in a manner visible against the sky from some point in any street and to be also inclusive of all and every part of such pole, post, standard frame work or other support. Coming to the ordinary meaning of the words noticed by the High Court, Advertisement , Announcement and Direction used in the statutory provision under consideration, we find the High Court to have adopted a hyper-technical approach, altogether. In common parlance, advertisement means to make publicly known an information by some device and to draw or attract attention of public/individual concerned to such information. It need not necessarily be to sell only or solely for commercial exploitation. The consequences of our allowing the appeal and ordering the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondent would result in the restoration of the proceedings instituted before the Criminal Court for prosecuting the respondent under Section 471 of the Act or with a liberty to institute or pursue the same further. The fact that the respondent succeeded before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench would at any rate go to show that the respondent had no culpable or guilty mind to violate or evade compliance and that the respondent seems to have entertained a genuine belief that they are not bound by the provisions contained in Section 328/328A of the Act.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Sections 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
2. Definition and scope of "sky-sign" under Section 328(3) of the Act.
3. Whether the signboards erected by the respondent constitute an "advertisement", "announcement", or "direction" under the Act.
4. Validity of the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant-Corporation against the respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Sections 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888:
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Sections 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The appellant-Corporation contended that the signboards erected by the respondent required permission under these sections, which the respondent failed to obtain. The High Court's interpretation of these sections was challenged, with the appellant-Corporation arguing that the signboards fell within the purview of "advertisement", "announcement", or "direction" as defined under the Act.

2. Definition and Scope of "Sky-sign" under Section 328(3) of the Act:
Section 328(3) defines "sky-sign" as any word, letter, model, sign, device, or representation in the nature of an advertisement, announcement, or direction, supported on or attached to any post, pole, standard framework, or other support visible against the sky from some point in any street. The Court emphasized that the statutory definition is inclusive and intended to cover a wide range of fixtures to ensure road safety, free flow of traffic, and environmental preservation. The provision aims to regulate such installations to prevent adverse physiological and psychological impacts on the public.

3. Whether the Signboards Erected by the Respondent Constitute an "Advertisement", "Announcement", or "Direction" under the Act:
The High Court had previously ruled that the signboards did not constitute an advertisement, announcement, or direction. The Single Judge held that the boards merely provided information about the location of the petrol pumps and did not invite patronage. The Division Bench agreed but adopted a different approach, emphasizing the absence of commercial exploitation. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, stating that the words "advertisement", "announcement", and "direction" should be understood in their ordinary sense. The Court clarified that an advertisement need not solely be for commercial purposes, and an announcement is any effort to make something publicly known. A direction, in this context, indicates the way or path towards a destination. The Court concluded that the signboards were indeed in the nature of an advertisement, announcement, or direction as defined under the Act.

4. Validity of the Criminal Proceedings Initiated by the Appellant-Corporation against the Respondent:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, thereby reinstating the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant-Corporation under Section 471 of the Act. However, the Court acknowledged that the respondent had a genuine belief that they were not bound by the provisions of Sections 328/328A. Therefore, the Court directed the appellant-Corporation to issue a notice to the respondent detailing the monetary liability towards arrears of license fees and to call upon the respondent to make a formal application for ratification and approval of their installations within 30 days. If the respondent complied with these directions, the appellant-Corporation would not pursue the prosecution. If the respondent defaulted, the proceedings would revive, and the appellant-Corporation would be at liberty to enforce the provisions of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition. The Court provided a pathway for the respondent to regularize their installations and avoid prosecution, emphasizing the need for compliance with the statutory provisions to ensure public safety and order.

← Previous Next →