HC gives 4-week deadline to ad agencies for removing illegal billboards in NAINA

Bombay HC directs removal of illegal billboards in Navi Mumbai's NAINA within 4 weeks, following CIDCO violations. Court allows 4 weeks for removal at own expense.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Thursday directed advertising agencies to dismantle illegal billboards in Navi Mumbai’s Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA) within four weeks, following violations cited by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO). If not removed in time, CIDCO has the authority to demolish them.

HT Image

This order follows petitions challenging a notice issued on May 22, which demanded the removal of hoardings within 24 hours due to the absence of required permissions, highlighted by the recent Ghatkopar tragedy. Previously, the court had halted demolitions and requested CIDCO to formulate a policy addressing illegal hoardings.

CIDCO’s counsel stated that according to Regulation 30 of its Development Control and Promotion Regulations for NAINA, hoardings over 3 metres high are prohibited in National Highway areas. The petitioners’ hoardings exceeded this limit, thus violating the law.

The court expressed dissatisfaction that this regulation was not mentioned in the previous hearing and criticised CIDCO for not issuing show-cause notices earlier citing the provision, questioning why the illegal structures were tolerated until the recent Ghatkopar incident.

The court remarked, “One fire in a hotel, no more terrace hotels; one hoarding falls down, no highway will have a hoarding.”

In response, the court allowed the petitioners four weeks to remove the structures at their own expense. A compliance affidavit must be filed with CIDCO as soon as the hoardings are removed. It also permitted them to seek new permissions from CIDCO, which must process these requests promptly. Additionally, the court granted the advertising agencies the right to request a review of the current hoarding measurement requirements, with CIDCO required to respond within 45 days.

The court’s intervention stemmed from petitions by Devangi Outdoor Advertising and Harmesh Dilip Tanna of Gargee Graphics, who contested CIDCO’s 24-hour removal notices as arbitrary and unlawful.

The urgency in CIDCO’s actions followed a May 13 incident in Ghatkopar, where a billboard collapse at a petrol pump killed 17 people and injured 74 others. In response, CIDCO issued removal notices to prevent similar tragedies.

The petitioners, operating hoardings overlooking highways and expressways, claimed they had obtained necessary permissions. However, they received notices threatening prosecution under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and warned of dismantling costs being recovered from them.

The petitioners argued the notices were illegal for lacking specific measurements, not clarifying if the structures were temporary or permanent, and not including detailed descriptions. They also contended that the notices violated natural justice principles by not issuing show-cause notices.

While acknowledging the Ghatkopar tragedy’s severity, the petitioners had maintained that it did not justify indiscriminate actions against all advertisers without verifying the structural stability of their hoardings, calling CIDCO’s actions arbitrary and illegal.