'BBMP Officials Riding Paper Horses': Karnataka High Court Warns Of Cost For Failure To Prevent Erection Of Illegal Flex Boards In Bengaluru

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday took strong exception over the inaction of BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) officials to prevent putting up of alleged illegal hoardings/banners and flexes across Bengaluru city.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal on going through the compliance report submitted by the Corporation observed,

“It can be said that this compliance report is nothing but an eye wash and we are further surprised to see the audacity of officers of corporation to submit the response which shows that corporation officers are not at all interested to initiate any action but only happy in ‘riding paper horses’, and further suggesting that corporation is helpless and conveniently avoiding to take any action.”

The bench has directed the Corporation to submit its proposed action plan against those who have erected these unauthorised hoarding, banners and other advertisement material, in three weeks. It has also sought details of their proposed action against the erring officers and notice, if issued, against those owners or occupants of the premises where illegal hoardings are erected.

The Court also clarified that after three weeks if it is reported that the hoardings/banners or advertising material is erected unauthorisedly, a cost of Rs. 1 lakh will be imposed on each of such hoardings/banner. 50% cost will be borne by the Corporation and remaining 50% by the State government.

Court noted that March 21, the BBMP had identified a total of 59,413, unauthorised flexes, banners and other advertisement material and had removed 58,429 of them. The expense of removing such unauthorised banners is borne by BBMP, which in turn is taxpayers money.

“One is unable to find any logic, reason or rationale behind such causal approach of BBMP authorities, when on one hand there is rise in multiple numbers in the activity of erection of unauthorised banners/flexes and hoardings and corporation is using men and machinery to for removal of them and on the other hand those who have erected these hoardings, banners and flexes illegally are moving scot free and with full immunity.”

BBMP has lodged 134 complaints and 40 FIRs. It also made a statement that it has cleared unauthorised banners that political parties and their supporters erected during the assembly elections. However, the bench expressed,

“These statements are clearly indicative of the fact that corporation under the guise of helplessness trying to avoid its duty, the officers are conveniently shifting burden from one officer to another officer from ward officer to zonal officer, the report is blissfully silent on the aspect that if the subordinate officers are failing in their duties, why the top officer of the corporation cannot initiate action against these erring officers and the erring officers can certainly be subjected to departmental actions for dereliction of their duties and why not a single step is initiated against such an erring officers.”

The Court also noted that the complaints and FIRs were silent on the aspect whether they were against the officer bearers of such political parties or such complaints/FIR are lodged only against those who have erected the banners/flexes, for commercial purposes.

Junking the contention of the BBMP that corporation officers face difficulties sometimes as hoardings are erected in the premises of private buildings, the bench referring to Section 158 and Section 160 of the BBMP Act 2020, said “This helplessness of officers is wholly unjustified and unsustainable.”

Further it said “If this provision is available in statute book the helplessness of officers of BBMP can be treated either as an act of sheer negligence or an act of excuse for avoiding the duty.”

Referring to earlier court orders which cast a duty on the corporation to act against the unauthorised erection of banners/flexes and hoarding, the bench said “Thus the picture emerges from the perusal of compliance report is that there is uncontrolled and unregulated rise of hoardings/banners and other advertisement material in the state, in general. City of Bengaluru is full of such material, the corporation is showing its helplessness to control the menace of unregulated and uncontrolled hoardings, banner. The State government at least at this stage there is no material to indicate that it is taking any initiative and as usually the state says that so called action mode is missing here. On the other hand the city is left to its own fate. This picture is not only surprising/shocking but as we have observed shaking one’s conscience. As such there is an immediate need to put the respondent authorities in action mode.”

Following which the bench directed the Corporation to submit details of those complaints and FIR which are referred to in the statement, in three weeks. Corporation is also to place on record the reasons as to why penalty was not levied in a single matter and why when the total number of unauthorised banners/flex was to the total of 59,413, only the minimal complaints of 134 and 40 FIR were lodged.

The court has appointed advocate Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in the matter.

Before concluding, the bench orally observed, “Unless the state government also puts its control there will be no change in the situation. Otherwise the corporation will raise its hands up and the state will say it is in the domain of the corporation and we are not supposed to do anything in that. Unless we put the state in action mode and put some deterrence for the state government there will be no change in scenario.”

Further it opined, “Those who are in power and manning the state it is not their duty that Bengaluru city looks good/appreciable. What impression is being carried out by someone who enters the city from Airport or any other place. Is it that the government wants to show hoardings and banners erected anywhere and everywhere?"

It added “If you are in the process that State of Karnataka is a developed state and brings further development and attracts investments and if you want to project it as brand Bengaluru, it will not be done unless an investor finds it to be a good city or a moderate city, without erection of such hoardings, otherwise what picture you are painting. Any state can ask for larger investment, for that capital city has to be in better shape. When I was in Mumbai, the slogan was "let Mumbai be like Shanghai or Singapore but what is the reality?" Asking for something good is not wrong, it is no crime but for that there has to be concentrated efforts, you have to see that the implementing agency is working properly.”

Case Title: Mayige Gowda And State of Karnataka

Case No: W.P. NO. 57990 OF 2017