Illegal Hoardings To Go In Four Weeks From Navi Mumbai, Companies Assure

After the tragic Ghatkopar hoarding collapse, resulting in 17 fatalities, numerous hoarding companies in Navi Mumbai, previously served notices for illegal hoardings, assured the Bombay High Court of their removal within four weeks. Justices NR Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan presided over petitions contesting City And Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) notices to demolish hoardings within the Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA). 

Reviewing the Sanctioned Development Control and Promotion Regulations for NAINA's Interim Development Plan, the court observed longstanding hoardings, stressing the need for both sides to address regulatory compliance regarding hoardings.

The bench stated that offering legal protection to the hoardings would not be feasible. "It is settled law that the equity can supplement the law but cannot supplant the law," mentioned the bench.

However, the bench expressed the view that considering many of these hoardings have been in place for several years without enforcement action, it would be equitable to allow petitioners the option to voluntarily remove the hoardings. This would prevent further public expenditure or potential damage to private property during any demolition process.

Following discussions with their counsels, petitioners agreed to dismantle the non-compliant hoardings within four weeks. They also pledged to apply to CIDCO for compliant installation under regulations. 

The bench specified that upon removal, petitioners must promptly submit an affidavit to CIDCO confirming compliance with their undertaking made in court on 30 May.

The bench highlighted, "This is necessary since we have leaned upon CIDCO not to deploy their demolition exercise, on the basis that the Petitioners have committed to bringing down non-compliant hoardings on their own."

In contrast, the petitioners argued that the approved dimensions of the hoardings were outdated and might warrant reconsideration. 

Responding, the bench granted petitioners the freedom to present such arguments to persuade CIDCO to reassess its policy regarding hoarding sizes. The bench emphasized that CIDCO should promptly review these representations, considering all relevant factors for a policy decision on the matter.