Andromeda Communications Private Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

03.09.2025. ii. It is stated tender and issuance of contract (work order was all done by following relevant policy). iii. It further stated selected agency reportedly operating within the jurisdiction of BMC (V& VI) following the settled norms and condition, iv. Clause (iii) in the report is as follows:- 4(iii). Pedestrian Safety and Free Movement 14 15 Adequate clear footpath width is maintained at all locations. Installations such as kiosks, tree guards, and bus shelter branding hinder pedestrian movement or accessibility. Herein the corporation compares a huge private hoarding being put up with public facilities kiosks, free guards and bus shelter. v. Clause iv is as follows:- 4(iv). Buffer from Residential Premises Advertisement structures are not placed directly residential bungalows, apartments, or sensitive premises in a manner that causes visual intrusion, privacy concerns, or inconvenience to residents.

#10. The structure herein is being put up by encroaching the public footpath and is being put up in front of a building commercial purpose. Thereby blocking the view of the building and causing visual inconvenience.

#11. Finally it is stated:- From physical inspection conducted by this Corporation on 15 16

16.04.2026, it appears that the structure to be built by the selected agency is nearly 12 feet away from the structure/construction of the Petitioner herein and no public road/footpath has been encroached as such.

#12. The pictures placed before this Court and not denied by the respondents totally contradict such contents of the report submitted are as follows:- 16 17 17 18

#13. In the present case not only has the private respondent encroached a major portion of the narrow footh path, but by putting up such a huge hoarding would be bleeking air, light, verticaltion and hamper the business of the petitioner who runs the commercial hub there.

#14. The statement in the report stating that public footpath has not been encroached is in total contradiction to the admitted pictures which are part of the writ application.

#15. There is prima facie violation of clause 14.3.4, 14.3.8, 25.1.2, of the advertisement policy of the State.

#16. The private respondent has fairly stated that the location for the hoarding was chosen by him and he is willing to relocate at once, not willing to cause further inconvenience to the petitioners herein. 18 19

#17. This proves that no location was specified to the respondents who chose the position/location he thought was for his hoarding (violation of clause 8.2.6).

#18. On choice of location, it appears that no inspection was carried out to show that the authorities had taken care to ensure that the policy guideline are being followed or not.

#19. Accordingly the writ application is disposed of with the direction that the matter be placed before the appropriate authority of respondent corporation as per clause 16 of the advertisement policy of the State, and the issue and dispute raised shall be disposed as provided therein on hearing all stake holders. Copy of the writ application be treated as representation.

#20. While considering the matter, the authority shall strictly adhere to the advertisement policy of the state.

#21. The erection of the hoarding in this case and the work order dated

14.03.2026 be stayed till completion of the hearing as directed and shall be subject to the outcome of the cases before the said authority.

#22. WPA 9264 of 2026 is disposed of. 19 20

#23. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.

#24. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

#25. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. ) 20