Karnataka HC takes suo motu cognizance of hoardings in Bengaluru, issues contempt notices to commissioners of BBMP, city police
The Karnataka High Court observed that illegal activities of placing hoardings had continued, which amounted to "brazen disregard" of court orders.
2 min read
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind, subsequently issued notices to the Commissioners of the Police and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), on why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them. (File Photo)The Karnataka High Court on Friday morning took suo motu cognizance of the issue of illegal flex boards and hoardings in Bengaluru, based on news reports regarding the same.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind, subsequently issued notices to the Commissioners of the Police and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), on why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them.
The bench stated, “The record is replete with orders in which directions were given by the court from time to time to the authorities, especially the BBMP and office of Commissioner of Police….attention of the court was drawn to a news item…..suggests that the BBMP had to remove over 6.8 lakh illegal advertisements. The contents of the news item only depict a very sorry state of affairs, more particularly in the light of various orders passed.”
The court observed that illegal activities of placing hoardings had continued, which amounted to “brazen disregard” of court orders. Based on this, the court stated that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution were thereby invoked.
A notice was issued to the State of Karnataka, the office of the BBMP Commissioner and Commissioner of Police, stating that if hoardings and banners continued to be erected, a cost of Rs 1 lakh would be imposed. The court also stated that the latter two — BBMP Commissioner and Commissioner of Police — were directed to answer why they should not be booked for contempt of court, with a reply to be issued by July 26.
The bench orally observed that a regular mechanism had to be developed to prevent hoardings, adding that “the gear has to be changed from 1st to 5th”.
You May Like
Photos
