' IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Both the parties are ready to advance the final arguments. They do not want to submit any further pleadings. This case shall be treated as a pacca case.
2. The stand of the petitioners is that they run advertisement business. They install billboards and sky boards, etc. And provide the space of the Boards for advertisement to other persons or companies interested in advertising their products or the services. Exercising the powers conferred under the Advertisement Bye Laws, 2001 of TMA Sahiwal Tehsil Council, Sahiwal, the Administrator TMA vide Notification No,201/ADM/TMA/SWL dated 30-7-2012 notified certain locations for the installation of billboards for the purpose of advertisement. Vide two separate NOCs dated 30-7- 2012, the petitioners were allowed to install 5 and 4 billboards each measuring 45 x 15 feet each at the specified sites. The petitioners installed nine billboards which were provided space for advertisement to those who were interested in advertising. The TMA Sahiwal vide order dated 6-9- 2012 cancelled the NOCs dated 30-7-2012 separately issued in favour of the petitioners on the ground of receipt of multiple public complaints and the feared traffic hazards. A committee was constituted to examine the process of issuance of NOCs and to conduct survey of the City. The petitioners are impugning the order dated 6-9-2012.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had already installed five billboards and four were in the process of manufacturing and installation, thus a valuable proprietary right had accrued in their favour; that they had installed the said billboards after completing all the formalities and keeping in view the conditions mentioned in the NOCs; that the vested rights created in favour of the petitioners could not be taken away vide the impugned office order; that the petitioners have not been heard before passing of the order, thus the principle of Audi alter am partem has been violated; that constitution of the committee after passing of the impugned order will be tantamount to framing of the charge after hanging a person; that the respondents could not cancel the NOCs and should have waited for the expiry of specified period.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Sohail Iqbal Bhatti, Additional Advocate General, Punjab on Court's Call assisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of TMA contend that the instant petition has been filed without availing the remedy of preference of an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under section 190 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and the Punjab Local Government (Appeal) Rules, 2002, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Relies on "2003 CLC 391" titled Fazal Mehmood and another v. Tehsil Municipal Administration through Tehsil Nazim, Okara and 2 others; that the respondents TMA Sahiwal had, before passing of the impugned order, vide office order dated 22-6-2012 constituted a committee for, looking into the affairs regarding the installation of the billboards and irregularities, if any committed in the matter and the impugned order only carries a mention of creation of that committee; that as is apparent from various photographs annexed with this petition as annexure "D", the size of the billboards installed by the petitioners is 60 x 20 feet, which is a glaring violation of terms of NOCs. This very breach of the conditions justifies the cancellation of NOCs; that the purpose of cancellation of the NOCs is not the prohibition but the regularization of the business; that the petitioners are only the licensees and a licence does not create any right. Relies on "PLD 2011 Lahore 61" titled Mehran Advertiser and others v. Government of Punt and others.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.
6. Instead of dealing with the maintainability of this petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of filing an appeal, I would like to deal with this matter on merits as it involves a substantial and multidimensional interest of public at large which I am afraid may be overlooked by the appellate authority who may like to constrain itself to the structural design and size of the boards only. The respondent Tehsil Municipal Administration has under subsections (d) (e) and (g) of section 54 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001,' the authority and control over land- use and enforcement of municipal laws and bye-laws and regulate affixing of sign boards and advertisements and to take measures for the conservation of environment and the beautification of its local areas. Any person or authority vested with such powers has an implied authority to regulate any trade or profession by a licensing system which is distinct from a complete prohibition. It is so provided by Article 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
The expression of regulation has been interpreted by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Arshad Mehmood v. The Government of the Punjab cited as (PLD 2005 SC 193). While performing these functions relating to the development of the area, management and maintenance of the parks, open spaces and conservation of the environment, the equilibrium has to be kept in mind.
The industrial and commercial development has to be given way without affecting the environment in a manner, the bee collects the honey without damaging the flowers, In the instant case, while allowing the installation of the signboards at the specified sites, the interest of the most important stakeholders, the public at large, for whose benefit the economic, political and social structure is supposed to be designed, has been overlooked. The billboards provide space for advertising the merchandise and services that some are ready to dispense and others are willing to buy or for propagation of something. The billboards bring the, seller and the buyer closer. The advertiser looks for the advertising space at conspicuous places and on a mega screen. The same site and space is also needed for beautification, flora and openness. The big signboards obstruct the sun and air, making both these abundant blessing of nature, scarce for those, forced to live in the hind of these boards. The obstruction to air caused by these boards not only deprives the people of the affluent use of this gift of nature but also converts these boards into flying saucers lethal to human life and hazardous to the property. Recent past stands witness to it. In Karachi and Sahiwal. The size of the billboards has to be reduced drastically.
A pedestrian can see the advertisement even on the small boards a motorist should not see it at all on small or big screen. Hunza in Pakistan and London in U.K with exception of Piccadilly have learnt to benefit from small and slim boards. Even big boards are prone to be belittled by bigger boards. The conspicuousness is always relative. A horse is too gigantic amidst the poultry but goes unnoticed in the foreground of gigantic Himalayan Mountains. The size of boards permitted by the respondent TMA 45 x .15 is too big to be tolerated. The respondent shall ponder to cut its size drastically and unpleasantly. Hunza has it 1.5 x 2.5. It will not reduce their income. The smarter the boards are, the dearer their space will sell.
7. The petitioners, as one can see from the photographs provided by the petitioners themselves had exceeded the permitted size and had thus violated the terms of licence. The respondents have rightly cancelled the NOCs granted to them which were merely the licenses and did not create any proprietary rights in their favour. I seek support from Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the judgment "PLD 2011 Lahore 61". Any trade business or profession may be regulated by the licensing system that the TMA Sahiwal has endeavored to do.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not heard and the committee to hear the objections and representations of the affectees of the impugned order was constituted after passing of the order is ill founded. The committee had already been constituted vide office order dated 22-6-2012 available at page 11 of the petition. I don't see any illegality in the impugned order. The petitioners having violated the terms of the licence do not deserve the extra ordinary relief they claim. The respondents shall reconsider and reduce the size of the billboards keeping in view what has been discussed above. The interest of the real stake holders, the public shall be the focal point, whom Mr. Sohail Iqbal Bhatti, the learned Additional Advocate General represents. The valuable assistance rendered by him and the learned counsel for the parties is commended. The mega billboards glaringly violating the terms of licence have no room in the open space of the town which can be put to better use by refraining to misuse it. This petition is dismissed.