Bengaluru: Expressing dissatisfaction over the lack of a deterrent factor in the form of penal provisions against unauthorised hoardings and flexes at public places in BBMP bylaws, the high court Thursday told the authorities not to take the issue lightly.
"The problem of flexes in Bengaluru is the bone of contention and bone of suffering for all. It is very long. The original petition is in 2017, and we will revive it by suo-motu proceedings if you are taking the issue and proceedings lightly. We are addressing access to public roads," a division of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind strongly observed.
This was after advocate GR Mohan and other counsel representing the petitioners took the court through relevant provisions of BBMP bylaws. "The court could notice that the bylaws are conspicuously silent on provisions to be applied in respect of and against illegal erection of flexes and advertisement on roads, footpaths and public places, which is a subject matter of this PIL," the bench pointed out.
The provision relating to unauthorised advertisement/flexes erected on private lands provides for a penalty twice the rate fixed in the auction tender on the owner of property where such illegal infrastructure is erected, the bench pointed out. "However, to the dismay of the court, the bylaws do not provide any such provision in respect of flexes/advertisements which may have been put up illegally in public places such as footpaths and roads," it added.
Dwelling further, the bench noted that the bylaws only state that an unauthorised erection or display of advertisement on road or footpath owned by the govt and BBMP or an PSU or agency may be removed immediately without any written notice.
"This provision is the only one which is not penal in nature. It is a provision providing for consequential provision. Consequential and penal provisions are distinct provisions. There has to be a deterrent factor for those who indulge in rampant erection of unauthorised flexes to encroach upon public places and endanger pedestrian and vehicular traffic," the bench observed while adjourning the hearing to Jan 16, 2025.