Summary: The Pune Municipal Corporation's decision to increase license fees for sky-signs and billboards has been supported by the court. The case involved several legal challenges, focusing on whether the fee increase was legal and if it could be applied to past years.
This legal battle involves several advertising companies, including M/S. Digvijay Advertising, challenging the Pune Municipal Corporation's (PMC) decision to raise license fees for sky-signs and billboards. The fees were increased from Rs. 85 (Rs. 82.60) to Rs. 222 per square foot per year, effective from April 1, 2013.
Retroactive Approval: M/S. Digvijay Advertising argued that the fee increase was applied to past years, which they claimed was illegal. They argued that the PMC did not have the power to apply the fee increase to past years.
Legal Validity: They questioned whether the fee was legal, suggesting it was more like a tax than a fee for regulation, especially after a change in the Constitution.
Unfair Fees: M/S. Digvijay Advertising claimed the fees were too high and didn't directly relate to any service provided, essentially arguing that the fees were meant to make money rather than regulate.
Regulatory Fee: Pune Municipal Corporation maintained that the fees were meant to cover the costs associated with managing and supervising the advertising structures, which include safety and compliance checks.
Legal Power: The corporation argued that it had the legal power under certain sections of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act to charge these fees.
Approval Validity: The PMC contended that the approval by the General Body was valid, even if it applied to past years, as the law did not specifically require prior approval.
Power to Charge Fees: The court confirmed that the PMC has the power to charge and collect these fees under the relevant sections of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act.
Type of Fees: The court decided that the fees were for regulation, not a tax, and thus were not affected by the constitutional changes.
Application to Past Years: The court found that the approval by the General Body to apply the fees to past years was valid and within the legal rules.
Fairness of Fees: The court rejected the claim that the fees were too high, noting that the increase was fair given that they hadn't been revised for a long time.
The court dismissed the petitions, supporting the PMC's decision to increase the license fees. This ruling confirms the corporation's power to regulate advertising structures within its area, ensuring they meet safety and regulatory standards.
