The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging directions issued by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) to remove advertisements directly or indirectly promoting tobacco products from their buses and bus stations.The petition was filed by a proprietary concern which had entered into agreements...
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging directions issued by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) to remove advertisements directly or indirectly promoting tobacco products from their buses and bus stations.
The petition was filed by a proprietary concern which had entered into agreements with the transport corporations for displaying advertisements, including those for Vimal Elaichi.
A single judge bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha declined to interfere with the directions, observing that the dispute arose out of contractual arrangements between the petitioner and the transport corporations and could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
"Having regards to the fact that impugned communications are issued subsequent to a contractual arrangement entered between petitioner and respondents, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction," the Court observed.
The Court, however, clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to respond to the impugned communications and that the transport corporations could take an appropriate decision on such a response.
It further observed that if the petitioner was unable to carry out advertisements in accordance with the agreements, it could avail appropriate remedies under the terms of those agreements.
"It is open for the petitioner to give response to the impugned communication and for respondents to take a decision in that regard. In the event the petitioner is not able to carry out advertisements as per the agreements it is for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as per the terms of the said agreements, accordingly the petition stands dismissed," the Court said.
The dispute arose from communications issued by KSRTC on January 31 and BMTC on February 2, directing the discontinuation and removal of advertisement stickers and glow signs promoting tobacco products, directly or indirectly, from their buses and bus stations.
The petitioner contended that it had emerged as a successful bidder in a tender process and entered into agreements with the transport corporations in the preceding year.
Under these agreements, the petitioner claimed that it was permitted to display advertisements for Vimal Elaichi and other products of its choice.
However, the petitioner argued that the subsequent communications issued by the corporations prevented it from carrying on its advertising business despite the subsisting contractual arrangements.
Advocate Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the products being advertised were not tobacco products but merely natural products.
He argued that since the advertisements were being displayed pursuant to valid agreements, the transport corporations were bound to honour their contractual obligations.
It was further contended that no violation had been pointed out by statutory authorities, including the Food Safety and Drug Administration.
Opposing the petition, the government counsel submitted that even surrogate advertising of tobacco products was prohibited under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA).
The counsel further argued that the transport corporations themselves could face prosecution by the competent authorities in the event of any contravention of the statutory provisions.