1996 A I H C 5284 ::(1997) 1 RecCivR 239

Delhi High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): M Jagannadha Rao , C.J. AND Dalveer Bhandari , J

New Delhi Municipal Council Act (44 of 1994) , S.89(1), S.416(2)— New Delhi Municipal Council (Pasting of Bills and Advertisements) Bye-laws (1992) , Cl.3(6)— Pasting of advertisements - Prior sanction of chairperson - Is mandatory - Fact that such sanction was not made mandatory on class of advertisements mentioned in sub-clause (6) of Cl. 3 - No ground to say that entire bye-laws are inconsistent with Act - Advertisement falling under that sub-clause can be said to have ceased to be exempt from requirement of prior sanction under S. 89(1) of Act. Section 89 of the NDMC Act, 1994 prohibits advertisement to be erected, exhibited etc. without the written permission of the Chairperson, whereas the position under the bye-laws of 1992 framed under the erstwhile Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 is that there are two categories of advertisements one which did not require permission and another which required permission. From the fact that prior sanction was not made mandatory under the bye-laws, it cannot be said that entire bye-laws are inconsistent with Act. Mere absence of a provision corresponding to sub-clause (6) of Cl. 3 of the said Bye-laws does not mean there is inconsistency between the said sub-clause and the new Act. The only result is that the class of advertisements falling under sub-clause (6) of old Bye-law 3, may now cease to be exempt which would mean ....