- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) In the present appeal the appellants ICICI bank Limited has challenged the order of the Bombay High Court whereby the High court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant holding that the sign boards fixed above the ATM Centers of the ICICI bank do amount to an advertisement and therefore the action taken by the Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay by issuance of notice is in accordance with the law. The facts, in brief are that : 2.1. Sometime up to the year 2000 the appellant no. 1, ICICI Bank has installed atm Centers and Extension counters, Bank branches at 64 locations in the city of bombay for the convenience of its depositors. Certain signboards were fixed above the entry of the ATM centers and extension counters indicating their location. They are illuminated to indicate the locations of the atm centers. The Municipal Corporation did not approve of putting up of the illuminated signboards at ATM centers and therefore issued notice to the appellant under sections 328 and 328a of the Bombay municipal Corporation Act 1888 (hereinafter to be referred to as The Act'). The contents of the notice are that the appellant has displayed at its premises sky sign/ glow Sign/neon Sign/illuminated Boards without the permission of the Bombay municipal Corporation. It was incumbent upon the appellant before putting up such signboards etc. , to have taken the permission and made the required payment. The notice required the appellant to make cer- tain payment by filling the prescribed form within three days of the receipt of the notice, failing which BMC would take necessary action, including defacing/removal of the boards at appellant's cost. The notice was replied by the appellant contending therein that the appellant does not admit any of the allegations mentioned in the notice and requested the BMC not to take any action as contemplated in the said notice. Thereafter in the month of August 2003 the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of bombay alleging that the impugned notices which were served on the appellant bank are wholly without jurisdiction and without the authority of law and that the same violated the fundamental and other rights of the appellant bank and therefore the same are illegal, null and void. According to the appellant the signboards fixed overthe ATM centers or Extension counters does not amount to advertisement as specified in section 328a of the Act nor do they come underthe definition of sky-sign as defined in section 328 of the Act. They merely tell the existing account holder about the location of the ATM booth. The said signboards are only for the guidance of the public and that the services rendered by the appellant bank are not advertised. The signboards are essential for the working and business of the appellant bank and does not amount to advertisement and therefore the notices issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, requiring the appellant to make the payment of the amount is illegal. The High court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the controversy involved in the case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in municipal Corporation of Greater bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and held that the signboards fixed above the ATM Centers of the appellant bank do amount to an advertisement. The impugned notices, therefore, cannot be faulted. In consequence thereof the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(3.) The learned senior counsel Shri R. F. Nariman has urged that the illuminated signboards of the appellant bank does not fall within the definition of sky-sign in Section 328 of the Bombay Municipal corporation Act 1888 and therefore Section 328 of the Act has no application. Hence, the High court committed an error in applying the ratio laid down by this Court in the matter of municipal Corporation of Greater bombay's case (supra). The signboards fixed on the ATM Centers of the Bank and its Extension Counters only indicates to its customers about the location of the bank/ atm Centers to facilitate them to carry out the banking transaction at any time of the day or night and is in the nature of the in- house facility provided to the customers of the bank and does not in any way convey message of commercial or business activities of the appellant bank. The illuminated signboard does not relate to the business or commercial activities of the bank nor does it propagate the ideas with regard to the goods or services rendered by the party. It merely displays as to where the ATM Center is located and therefore the action of the bank putting up the illuminated signboards does not fall within the ambit of section 328a of the Act. To counter this argument, Mr. V. R. Reddy, learned senior counsel submitted that in the facts of the case, the decision given by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater bombay (supra) is directly on point and the ratio decided covers the case. In any case, the illuminated signboards at the entry of the ATM Center and Extension Counter does not indicate their locations alone but attract the prospective customers also to open their accounts with the ICICI bank and in that manner it propagates ideas with regard to the goods or the services rendered by bank and therefore would be covered under Section 328a of the Act.;