Illegal, Unsafe Hoardings Removed By Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation: High Court Disposes PIL, Refuses To Look Into Tender Process

Update: 2024-08-29 04:45 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

Total 84 hoardings deemed illegal and unsafe have been removed from Ahmedabad city, the Gujarat High Court was informed last week.Of over 2,000 billboards and hoardings erected in the city, the Municipal Corporation found 74 hoardings to have been erected without any permission and remaining 12 were found to be unsafe.The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Total 84 hoardings deemed illegal and unsafe have been removed from Ahmedabad city, the Gujarat High Court was informed last week.

Of over 2,000 billboards and hoardings erected in the city, the Municipal Corporation found 74 hoardings to have been erected without any permission and remaining 12 were found to be unsafe.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi thus dismissed as infructuous, the PIL filed by one Sharma Parvatiben Chimanlal raising concerns about the safety of billboards and hoardings, particularly amid the rainy season. It was also argued that many of these hoardings were erected without adhering to the norms set by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and the General Development Control Regulations (GDCR).

The Court however refused to look into the tender process further questioned by the petitioner, stating, "we are not inclined to make any roving inquiry to summon the record to make an inquiry into the tender conditions floated by the Corporation."

Petitioner claimed that the advertising hoardings were erected on a 'Unipole' but if the record of the Corporation is called for to inspect the tender document, it would be clear as to whether tender was floated for 'Gantry' or 'Unipole'. It is sought to be submitted that 'Gantry' and 'Unipole' are two different features for erection of hoardings and there was a requirement for mentioning the same in the tender document.

However, the Court refused to expand the scope of PIL on such "vague assertion".

Case Title: Sharma Parvatiben Chimanlal Versus Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 119

Click Here To Download Judgement

Tags:    

Similar News