Oval Maidan ads will’ve to go

SC upholds Bombay HC order, says hoardings  can’t be displayed at the heritage precinct

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that Oval Maidan at Churchgate is a “heritage precinct” and no advertiser could put up their hoardings.

Dismissing an appeal by a Mumbai advertising concern,  challenging a Bombay High Court judgment in 2005 that banned display of hoardings on the heritage premises, a bench of Justice SH Kapadia and Justice B Sudershan Reddy said, “We see no merits in the special leave petition. Oval Maidan is a heritage precinct. The petitioner cannot be allowed to have a hoarding on such heritage precincts.”

Refusing to grant exemption to Sine Fine Advertising Pvt Ltd., from the detailed directions issued by the High Court, the  judges observed “question of exemption does not arise as a matter of right.”

The judges recalled the Bombay High Court judgment in a public interest litigation giving directions prohibiting hoarding on the premises. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by asking the firm to move the Mumbai Municipal Commissioner for grant of exemption, the apex court said, adding that the Commissioner is bound by the court directives.

Earlier, while resolving a dispute over the nature of buildings that could be barred from putting up hoardings, the Supreme Court  upheld a Maharashtra government’s resolution in 1995 that classifies 633 buildings and precincts of “historical, aesthetical, architectural or cultural value” where hoardings were banned.

They are the precincts of Fort, Bombay High Court, Dababhai Naoroji Road’s Fort House, Mahalaxmi and Banganga.

The dispute had been raised on whether Mahalaxmi was indeed a precinct of heritage importance. A bench of Justices Ruma Pal and AR Lakshmanan said it was a listed heritage and no hoarding could be put up there.

Thus, the court ordered Mass Holdings Pvt Ltd to remove its hoardings within 10 days lest the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai should demolish them. But on being told that the Maharashtra Heritage Conservation Committee had agreed to consider its representation to obtain a ‘no-objection’ to their hoardings, the Bench stayed operation of the judgment until MHCC took a decision.

The MHCC itself had challenged putting up hoardings in the precincts of heritage buildings. It had moved a PIL before the Bombay High Court seeking removal of the hoardings in and around the heritage buildings.

The HC set up an expert panel to locate such hoardings. It submitted two lists of hoardings that had been put up in violation of the Heritage Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1995.