Karnataka HC restrains BBMP from taking action against advertisement agencies
The High Court on Thursday asked BBMP not to take any precipitative action against some advertisers who had moved the court against its resolution banning outdoor advertisements for one year.
Published: 07th September 2018 06:50 AM | Last Updated: 07th September 2018 07:10 AM | A+A A-
Karnataka High Court (File | EPS)
BENGALURU:The High Court on Thursday asked BBMP not to take any precipitative action against some advertisers who had moved the court against its resolution banning outdoor advertisements for one year.
Justice G Narendar passed an interim order to that effect after hearing the petitions filed by the advertisers. The court also asked the registrar to check whether these petitions should be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
This came after Additional Advocate General A S Ponnanna informed the court that a bench headed by the Chief Justice is monitoring unauthorised hoardings/buntings/flexes in the city.
Pacific Advertising and other petitioners contended that they installed iron structures and had been displaying hoardings after obtaining permission from the BBMP. The BBMP cannot take a decision to impose a blanket ban on advertisements as the bylaws framed in 2006 for regulating non-commercial advertisements are still in force, the petitioners claimed.
The BBMP, on August 6, banned all kinds of outdoor advertisements for one year. Thereafter, the BBMP issued notice on August 27 to advertising agencies saying that the structures erected by them are illegal as they did not obtain permission from it.
Vidwat case: Court reserves order on bail
The High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the anticipatory bail petition filed by Krishna, one of the accused in the Vidwat assault case. Krishna is still absconding even six months after the attack on Vidwat at a city restaurant by Mohammed Nalpad Haris and others. Mohammed Nalpad is the son Congress MLA N A Haris. Judge B A Patil reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments made by B V Acharya, senior counsel representing the accused, and M S Shyam Sundar, special public prosecutor. Acharya argued that the police had filed a chargesheet and there was no material to show that the accused Krishna was involved in the assault. When the court queried as to why the accused was absconding, the counsel said he was at large fearing “torture from police.”
