Judgment CHANDRACHUD D.Y. (Dr.), J.:—The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is invoked in order that there be an adjudication into the lawfulness of hoardings of heritage buildings and heritage precincts in Mumbai. The jurisdiction of the Court was initially invoked in a petition filed in the public interest complaining of a complete failure on the part of law enforcing agencies-particularly the Municipal administration to discharge their statutory duty to regulate and control the proliferation of hoardings. According to the petitioner, the Municipal authorities had totally failed to duly and lawfully administer the provisions of sections 328 and 328-A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The grievance before the Court was that there was a failure to duly implement the provisions of Development Control Regulation 67 that was sanctioned by the State Government so as to come into force with effect from 1st June, 1995. 2. Development Control Regulations constitute the cornerstone of urban planning. Section 22 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 enunciates that a development plan shall indicate the manner in which the use of land in the area of the planning authority shall be regulated and the manner in which the development of land shall be carried out. By virtue of Clause (I) thereto, the development plan is to provide for the "preservation of features, structures of places of historical, natural, architectural and scientific interest and educational value and of heritage buildings and heritage precincts." That is now a matter of legislative policy; policy which is manifestly in the public interest. Regulation 67 labelled not inappropriately, in keeping with its contents as the Heritage Regulation, 1995 inter alia applies to buildings, artefacts, structures and precincts of historical, aesthetical, architectural or cultural value listed by the State Government. Heritage buildings are classified into three categories-Grade I, Grade II and Grade III buildings. An expert body the Heritage Conversation Committee has been constituted in order to discharge obligations conferred upon it by the regulation which has the force of law under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Heritage Conservation Committee consists of experts with demonstrable credentials, consisting as it does of engineers, architects, historians and environmentalists. Regulation 67(2) imposes restrictions on development, redevelopment and repairs of listed heritage buildings and precincts save and except with the prior written permission of the Municipal Commissioner. The Heritage Conservation Committee consists of experts with demonstrable credentials, consisting as it does of engineers, architects, historians and environmentalists. Regulation 67(2) imposes restrictions on development, redevelopment and repairs of listed heritage buildings and precincts save and except with the prior written permission of the Municipal Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner is directed to act on the advice of and in consultation with the Heritage Conservation Committee and it is only in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Commissioner may overrule the recommendations of the Committee. A list of heritage buildings and precincts consisting of 633 entries has been notified. The judgment of the Court dated 19th April, 2003: The role of the Municipal Commissioner vis a vis the Heritage Conservation Committee. 3. While exercising its jurisdiction in the petition which has been filed before the Court in the public interest, several orders were passed by this Court on 17th April, 2002; 3rd May, 2002; 2nd September, 2002 and 1st October, 2002. The Court was thereafter, moved in a batch of matters by hoarding owners and by persons claiming an entitlement to display advertisements and hoardings situated on heritage buildings. The challenge preferred before the Court was dealt with in a judgment and order of this Division Bench dated 19th April, 2003. We, inter alia, held that the permission which is granted to erect a hoarding structure under section 328 or section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is not a permission in perpetuity and the law as it governs on the date of an application for renewal must apply to the grant of permission by the Municipal Commissioner. 4. One of the issues which this Court was called upon to decide was in regard to the role and position of the Heritage Conservation Committee constituted under Regulation 67. By a notification dated 25th April, 1995, issued by the State Government, the composition of the Heritage Committee has been notified so as to consist of a Chairperson who shall either be a retired Municipal Commissioner or a former Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra and experts drawn from diverse fields as its members. These experts inter alia include Structural Engineers, Architects, Urban Designers, Environmentalists, a City historian and the Director of the Prince of Wales Museum. These experts inter alia include Structural Engineers, Architects, Urban Designers, Environmentalists, a City historian and the Director of the Prince of Wales Museum. Regulation 67(2) lays down that the Municipal Commissioner, shall act "on the advice of/in consultation with" the Heritage Conservation Committee and it is only in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Commissioner may overrule the recommendations of the Committee. Interpreting the provisions of the regulation in the context of the expert nature of the Committee, its role and position and its powers, duties and functions, this Court held thus : "37. These provisions emphasise the vital role which is played by the Committee and the significant status which is conferred upon the Committee and its recommendations. The Committee is an expert body composed of persons who possess wide experience in the field of conservation and preservation of the environment. Engineers, architects, historians and environmentalists who serve on the Committee are expected to discharge the salutary public functions which the Rules require them to perform. Therefore, it is that sub-Regulation (2) provides that the Commissioner shall act on the advice of/in consultation with the Heritage Conservation Committee. The Commissioner cannot ignore at will or act contrary to the advice which has been tendered by the Heritage Conservation Committee, as it is said in law, at his own sweet will and fancy. Though the Commissioner has been empowered in exception cases to overrule the recommendation of the Committee, this power cannot be exercised capriciously. This is a power to overrule, in exceptional cases, for reasons in writing. The Commissioner cannot do so as a matter of course merely because he prefers another view, or because another view is possible. If the Commissioner were permitted to do so, that would render the provisions contained in the regulations nugatory. The Commissioner must not only ordinarily but also invariably act in accordance with the advice of a High Powered Expert Committee-the Heritage Conservation Committee-which is to assist him. The regulation has stated that in exceptional cases the Commissioner may overrule the recommendation of the Committee. This has been subjected to the safeguard that it must be for reasons to be recorded in writing. The reasons to be recorded in writing must be reasons of an exceptional nature where, in occasional cases, the Commissioner may overrule the Committee. The regulation has stated that in exceptional cases the Commissioner may overrule the recommendation of the Committee. This has been subjected to the safeguard that it must be for reasons to be recorded in writing. The reasons to be recorded in writing must be reasons of an exceptional nature where, in occasional cases, the Commissioner may overrule the Committee. The importance of the advice of the Committee is made clear by the provision that even the power to overrule the Committee must be exercised by the Municipal Commissioner personally and not by any delegate of the Municipal Commissioner. In the circumstances, it is only to be expected that save and except where truly exceptional reasons have been made out, the advice which is rendered by the Heritage Conservation Committee must invariably be acted upon by the Commissioner. In an isolated case, where there has been a clear and patent error on the part of the Committee, the Commissioner is not powerless to intervene in the matter. ..... Exceptional powers have to be exercised in exceptional cases." 5. During the pendency of the public interest petition before this Court, an Expert Committee had been appointed by the Court inter alia to submit a report to the Court; in order to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of law governing the setting up of hoardings and of the guidelines framed by the Municipal Corporation. The Committee consisted of (i) Mr. Himanshu Roy, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Control Branch, Mumbai, (ii) Mr. Shiraj Rustomjee, a practising Advocate, (iii) Mr. Rahul Mehrotra or failing him, Ms. Brinda Somaiya, who are noted Conservation Architects. The Committee visited the hoarding sites, carried out a detailed exercise and submitted its reports. While delivering its judgment on 19th April, 2003 this Court was of the view that while there was no merit in the legal challenges preferred before the Court on behalf of the hoarding owners and advertisers, yet, it was inappropriate for the Court to deal with the facts of each individual case under Article 226 of the Constitution bereft of a decision by the Heritage Conservation Committee. The Expert Committee appointed by the Court carried out a mammoth exercise. The Expert Committee appointed by the Court carried out a mammoth exercise. Nevertheless, having regard to the role and position of the Heritage Conservation Committee, the Court left it to that Committee to consider individual cases after furnishing an opportunity to the advertisers and hoarding owners to submit their representation. The Court issued the following consequential directions : "(i) The reports of the Expert Committee, constituted in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 3rd May, 2002 in so far as they relate to Heritage structures and/or Heritage precincts shall be forwarded to the Heritage Conservation Committee constituted under Regulation 57(2) of the Heritage Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1995; (ii) The Heritage Conservation Committee is directed to inquire into the hoardings on listed Heritage structures and precincts and to submit a report to this Court with reference to each of the hoardings, specifying individually whether the same should be remained or removed. (iii) Individual hoarding owners and advertisers will be at liberty to file written representations before the Heritage Conservation Committee within a period of three weeks from today. The Heritage Conservation Committee shall determine the question referred to it as aforesaid, after considering the representations, if any, submitted by the hoarding owners and advertisers. The Committee shall have due regard to the reports of the Expert Committee appointed by this Court to the relevant provisions of law and the observations in the judgment; (iv) The Heritage Conservation Committee is directed to complete its work and to submit a report to this Court expeditiously and, in any event within a period of eight weeks. (v) The Heritage Conservation Committee shall submit a copy of its report to the Municipal Commissioner who shall thereupon submit his findings to this Court within a period of four weeks of the receipt of the report. (vi) The Municipal Corporation shall take steps forthwith for removing the offending hoardings immediately upon and in the light of the decision of the Municipal Commissioner. The status quo shall, however, continue to be maintained in the meantime. (vi) The Municipal Corporation shall take steps forthwith for removing the offending hoardings immediately upon and in the light of the decision of the Municipal Commissioner. The status quo shall, however, continue to be maintained in the meantime. (vii) Any hoarding owner or advertiser who considers himself aggrieved by the report of the Heritage Conservation Committee and/or the decision taken by the Municipal Commissioner, will file his objections thereto in the proceedings before this Court in the main matter which is pending (Writ Petition No. 1132 of 2002) or by adopting appropriate proceedings which shall be dealt with and disposed of by the First Court hearing matters relating to Public Interest Litigation; (viii) The interim orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1132 of 2002 shall be subject to the further directions issued hereinabove in regard to advertisements, hoardings and sky signs on Heritage structures and precincts." 6. A special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution has been filed before the Supreme Court to challenge the judgment of this Court dated 19th April, 2003. By an order dated 9th July, 2003, the Supreme Court while adjourning the hearing of the petition by either weeks, directed that in the meantime, in case any objection against the decision of the Municipal Commissioner under Clause (vii) of the directions issued by this Court is filed within two weeks of the communication of such decision to the concerned parties, status qua would be maintained till the disposal of the objection by this Court. The exercise carried out by the Heritage Conservation Committee : 7. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 19th April, 2003, the Heritage Conservation Committee received representations from hoarding owners and advertisers. A notice was published by the Municipal Corporation on 8th May, 2003 calling upon the hoarding owners and advertisers to file their representations before the Committee. The Committee made a survey at site of hoardings attached to listed heritage buildings and structures, those located in the compounds of such buildings and structures, those located in and around listed public open spaces and hoardings located within heritage precincts. An opportunity of a personal hearing was granted to hoarding owners and advertisers by the Heritage Conservation Committee on 16th July, 2003. An opportunity of a personal hearing was granted to hoarding owners and advertisers by the Heritage Conservation Committee on 16th July, 2003. The Committee observes in its report that "the vast majority of these hoardings have been erected to the detriment and prejudice of the heritage value of such structures, public open spaces and precincts". The policy guidelines framed by the Municipal Corporation on the grant of permission to display sky signs and advertisements, also recite that even historically and archaeologically important buildings, structures and locations have not been spared in the erection or display of such hoardings. The observations of the Committee provide a significant assessment by an expert body on the impact of hoardings on buildings and precincts of heritage value : "In a large number of cases, building/structures and public open spaces which are of high heritage value have been largely obscured by hoarding. In others, hoardings have been erected in the compulsory open space around listed heritage buildings/structures and buildings/structures within precincts. Many of the hoardings displayed (including mobile hoardings mounted on vehicles) obstruct the view and grandeur of Grade I and other listed heritage buildings/structures/public open spaces, and also greatly devalue the precinct and streetscape(s) located therein. Important nodes within heritage precincts have been significantly devalued by indiscriminate erection of hoardings. We are strongly of the view that listed heritage buildings/structures/public open spaces and heritage precincts require to be carefully protected and preserved and that, to this end, they should, in the main, be kept free of such hoardings." 8. "In order to avoid arbitrariness and to ensure uniformity and consistency of approach", the Committee considered that it was appropriate to frame guidelines which would be followed by it in deciding which of the hoardings should be retained and which should be removed. The Committee noted that in formulating the guidelines, it duly kept in mind the provisions of D.C. Regulation 67 and other Regulations, the orders of this Court, the representations made by the hoarding owners and advertisers as well as the observations made by the Committee. The Committee stated that it intended to follow these guidelines to decide future cases as well. The Committee stated that it intended to follow these guidelines to decide future cases as well. The Committee was of the view that while by and large hoardings should not be permitted at listed heritage buildings and structures and in their compounds or in and around listed public open spaces or within heritage precincts, it should be open to the Committee to permit a display exceptional cases if certain conditions are satisfied. Clauses 1 to 7 of the guidelines are of relevance to the present discussion and it would be convenient to extract them at this stage: "CATEGORY A 1. Hoardings attached to Listed Heritage Buildings/Structures or to Buildings/Structures (listed or unlisted) within Heritage Precincts No hoarding/advertisement shall be permitted which is attached in any manner to the facade or on top (i.e. on the terrace or roof including its ridge) of any listed heritage building/structure or any building/structure (listed or unlisted) within a heritage precinct. 2. Hoardings which obstruct the view of Grade 1 Listed Heritage Buildings/Structures/Public open Spaces No hoarding/advertisement shall be permitted which obstructs the view or mars the grandeur of a Grade I listed heritage building/structure/public open space. 3. Hoardings in compulsory open spaces of Listed Heritage Buildings/Structures and Buildings/Structures within Heritage Precincts. No hoarding/advertisement shall be permitted within the compulsory open space of any listed heritage building/structure of the compulsory open space of any building/structure (listed or unlisted) within a heritage precinct. 4. Hoardings in and around Listed Public Open Spaces and Public Open Spaces within Heritage Precincts. No hoarding/advertisement shall be permitted within or on the periphery of any listed public open space or of any public open space (listed or unlisted) within a heritage precinct. 5. Hoardings on or across public streets/roads and pavements within Heritage Precincts. No hoarding/advertisement shall be permitted on, above or across any public street/road (including a fly-over) or pavement within a heritage precinct. 6. Mobile Hoardings within Heritage Precincts or obstructing the view of Listed Heritage Buildings/Structures/Public Open Spaces. Open Spaces No mobile hoarding/advertisement displayed on a vehicle or any other mobile base shall be permitted : (a) Within a heritage precinct; or (b) Which obstructs the view of a listed heritage building/structure/public open space. CATEGORY B 7. Hoardings within the compound, but outside the compulsory open space of Listed Buildings/Heritage Structures and Unlisted Buildings/Structures within Heritage Precincts. Open Spaces No mobile hoarding/advertisement displayed on a vehicle or any other mobile base shall be permitted : (a) Within a heritage precinct; or (b) Which obstructs the view of a listed heritage building/structure/public open space. CATEGORY B 7. Hoardings within the compound, but outside the compulsory open space of Listed Buildings/Heritage Structures and Unlisted Buildings/Structures within Heritage Precincts. Hoardings/advertisements in the compounds, but not within the compulsory open space of : (a) listed heritage buildings/structures located outside heritage precincts may be permitted in cases where, in the opinion of the MHCC, they do not adversely affect the heritage value or mar the grandeur of the heritage building/structure; (b) unlisted Buildings/structures within a heritage precinct may be permitted in cases where, in the opinion of the MHCC, they do not adversely affect the heritage value of the precinct or streetscape located therein." The expression Heritage Precinct wherever it occurs in the Guidelines has been defined to mean listed heritage precincts and precincts proposed to be listed. Appended to the report of the Committee is a list consisting of 266 hoardings containing the location of each hoarding, the violation which was noted by the Committee and the recommendations made by the Committee. The Committee has also taken due note of the findings contained in the report of the Expert Committee appointed by this Court. The decision of the Municipal Commissioner : 9. In pursuance of the directions that were issued by this Court, the report of the Heritage Conservation Committee was considered by the Municipal Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner has filed an affidavit dated 19th November, 2003 in these proceedings. The Municipal Commissioner has agreed with the view of the Heritage Conservation Committee that no hoardings or advertisements should be permitted on any Grade-I listed heritage buildings/structures/public open spaces in their compound and on Grade-II listed heritage buildings/structures. The Municipal Commissioner has, however, disagreed with the Heritage Conservation Committee in respect of hoardings/advertisements in the compound of Grade-II buildings, with respect to the recommendations of the Committee on Grade-III buildings and their compounds and in respect of heritage precincts. According to the Municipal Commissioner, though a public notification has been issued in respect of the draft plans defending/redefining the boundaries of proposed heritage precincts, the proposal has not been finalised. According to the Municipal Commissioner, though a public notification has been issued in respect of the draft plans defending/redefining the boundaries of proposed heritage precincts, the proposal has not been finalised. The Commissioner came to the finding that the recommendations made in respect of unlisted precincts/spaces were beyond the purview of the order passed by this Court. The net result of the findings of the Municipal Commissioner is that 9 hoardings situated on Grade-I heritage buildings/structures and their compounds or in public open spaces are to be removed. 14 hoardings on the facade or the roof of Grade-II heritage buildings and structures are to be removed. Save and except for these 23 hoardings, the recommendations made by the Heritage Conservation Committee have not found acceptance with the Municipal Commissioner. In particular, 94 hoardings have been directed to be retained on the ground that they to precincts/open spaces which are not notified or listed. 35 hoardings are, according to the Commissioner, in railway premises, Court cases were stated to be pending in 24 cases. 21 hoardings had been removed prior to the order of this Court dated 19th April, 2003. 10. The Heritage Conservation Committee had recommended that hoardings within heritage precincts should not be allowed. The Municipal Commissioner stated that he does not agree with that recommendation. The reasons which he proffers are thus : "The heritage listed precincts encompass vast area and certain hoardings like one in Marine Drive have become part of Citys grandeur and unique character especially in the night. The hoardings cannot be totally banned within the heritage precincts as this part of the City is the commercial hub and financial centre for the country and the hoardings are vital and necessary part of the same." This extract from the report of the Municipal Commissioner sums up the quintessence of his approach. The points for consideration : 11. We have before us a large batch of petitions and objections that have been filed by hoarding owners and advertisers. In a large number of cases, the hoarding owners and advertisers have sought to support the view of the Municipal Commissioner and to impugn the correctness of the findings which were arrived at and the recommendations of the Heritage Conservation Committee. In some, the decision of the Commissioner where he accepts the recommendations of the Heritage Conservation Committee is challenged. In a large number of cases, the hoarding owners and advertisers have sought to support the view of the Municipal Commissioner and to impugn the correctness of the findings which were arrived at and the recommendations of the Heritage Conservation Committee. In some, the decision of the Commissioner where he accepts the recommendations of the Heritage Conservation Committee is challenged. On her part, the public interest petitioner has submitted before the Court that the Municipal Commissioner has clearly transgressed the limits of his powers and has acted patently in defiance of the directions issued by this Court on 19th April, 2003. We have heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the Hoarding Owners Association, for the Municipal Corporation and Counsel for the public interest petitioner. 12. While considering the submissions which have been urged before the Court, it would be material to segregate the broad points which arise in this batch of matters : The first and essential question is whether the approach of the Municipal Commissioner to the problem at hand and the findings which have been arrived at by him are consistent with the provisions of D.C. Regulation 67 and in accordance with the role and position of the Municipal Commissioner vis a vis the Heritage Conservation Committee; Secondly, certain specific areas need to be addressed in the connection: (a) The correctness of the view of the Municipal Commissioner that it is only in respect of a listed heritage precinct that a restraint could be imposed on the putting up of hoardings and advertisements or in other words that no restraint at all can be imposed if the precinct has not been finally notified as a listed heritage precinct; (b) The correctness of the approach of the Municipal Commissioner when he concludes that hoardings in heritage precincts should be allowed as part of the citys grandeur and unique character and hoardings being a vital and necessary part of the commercial hub and financial centre; Thirdly, whether the Heritage Conservation Committee has acted ultra vires its powers in framing guidelines; and Fourthly, whether the regulation of hoardings falls outside the jurisdiction of the Heritage  Committee. Heritage precincts : 13. The Municipal Commissioner has specifically sought to override the decision of the Heritage Conservation Committee in relation to hoardings situated in certain precincts on the ground that these precincts have not finally been notified as listed precincts. Heritage precincts : 13. The Municipal Commissioner has specifically sought to override the decision of the Heritage Conservation Committee in relation to hoardings situated in certain precincts on the ground that these precincts have not finally been notified as listed precincts. The Municipal Commissioner has adverted to seven precincts in paragraph 9 of the annexure to his affidavit dated 19th November, 2003 namely: (i) Marine Drive precinct; (ii) Nepean Sea Road precinct; (iii) Old Cuffe Parade precinct; (iv) Cooperage Development precinct; (v) Khodadad Circle precinct; (vi) the area to the south of the Gamdevi precinct; and (vii) Five Garden precinct. Now out of these precincts, those listed at Sr. Nos. iv, v, vi and vii above are in fact listed as heritage precincts. Sr.No. 633 in the list Heritage includes the Cooperate precinct which is a part of the Fort precinct. Sr.No. 543 comprises of Khodadad Circle precinct, Sr.No. 432 is the Gamdevi precinct and Sr. No. 548, the Five Garden precinct with Matunga residential houses. Therefore, evidently, the Municipal Commissioner has acted in clear ignorance of the indisputable position that several precincts which he prefers to in his affidavit are listed precincts, the listing having been done in pursuance of the provision of Development Control Regulation 67. The Municipal Commissioner was evidently unaware of the pitfalls of treading upon territory on which the law advisedly requires him to treat the view of an Expert Committee with deference. 14. On 12th July, 1999 a public notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation under the signature of the Director of Engineering Service and projects defining and as the case may be, enlarging the boundaries of several precincts including the Cooperage precinct and the Gamdevi precinct. By the aforesaid notification, it was also proposed to including the Marine Drive precinct and the Old Cuffe Parade precinct amongst others as heritage precincts. The notice was published in the Daily. 15. Section 46 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 specifically provides that the Planning Authority in considering an application for permission shall have due regard to the provisions of any draft or final plan or proposal published by means of notice, submitted or sanctioned under the Act. The notification dated 12th July, 1999 is a proposal and which as a result of the mandatory requirement of section 46, must be had due regard to. The notification dated 12th July, 1999 is a proposal and which as a result of the mandatory requirement of section 46, must be had due regard to. In (S.N. Rao v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1988(1) Bom.C.R. 457 (S.C.) : A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 712, permission had been granted to the fifth respondent for the development of a hotel on land situated at Bandra, Mumbai. In the sanctioned development plan of Greater Bombay of 1966, the land was shown in a residential zone, while a contiguous parcel of land was shown in the green belt. The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation rejected a proposal for development of the land on the sole ground that it was proposed to earmark the land under reference as a recreation ground during the revision of the development plan which was contemplated. In an appeal under section 47 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966, the Appellate Authority set aside the decision of the Municipal Commissioner which was challenged unsuccessfully before a Division Bench of this Court. The Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal had relied upon the provisions of section 46 and section 31(6) and held that having regard to the sanctioned plan, the land was included in a residential zone and no proposal to exclude it therefrom in the draft revised development plan had been published. Hence, it was held by the Appellate Authority that the Municipal Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the application for approval of the plan. The Appellate Authority, the Supreme Court noted, was of the view that the planning authority could only take into consideration any draft or final plan or proposal which had been published by means of notice or sanctioned under the Act. Dealing with these observations of the Appellate Authority, the Supreme Court held that there was some force in the contention of the appellant that the Appellate Authority had misunderstood the provisions of section 46. The Supreme Court recorded the submission of the appellate that the Municipal Corporation was entitled to take into consideration other relevant facts including the contemplated revision of the plan, apart from those mentioned in section 46. The Supreme Court recorded the submission of the appellate that the Municipal Corporation was entitled to take into consideration other relevant facts including the contemplated revision of the plan, apart from those mentioned in section 46. The Court noted that in support of the contention a decision of this Court in (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay)2, Writ Petition No. 2944 of 1982 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 6th March, 1984, had been relied upon in which an application for development permission was rejected by the Corporation on the ground that the property was reserved for public purposes or for a recreational ground in the draft revised development plan. The High Court repelled the challenge to the decision taking the view that even a proposed revision could be taken into account as one of the relevant factors. In this context, the Supreme Court held thus : "There can be no doubt that if there be any other material or relevant fact, section 46 does not stand in the way of such material or fact being considered by the Municipal Corporation for the grant or refusal to grant sanction of any development plan. In the unreported decision of the High Court, the relevant fact that was taken into consideration was the draft revised development plan, even though the plan was not published." In the case which arose before the Supreme Court, however, at the time of the Municipal Corporation rejecting the plan submitted by the fifth respondent, there was no draft revised development plan in existence and it was only in contemplation. The Supreme Court held that if there had been such a plan, the Municipal Commissioner would be entitled to rely upon it, in order to reject the application for development permission. However, an order rejecting the application for development permission submitted by the owner of the land should be supported by some concrete material, in the absence of which, permission could not be refused. This decision of the Supreme Court provides the binding principle in regard to the interpretation of section 46 of the Act. However, an order rejecting the application for development permission submitted by the owner of the land should be supported by some concrete material, in the absence of which, permission could not be refused. This decision of the Supreme Court provides the binding principle in regard to the interpretation of section 46 of the Act. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the Municipal Corporation is bound to take into consideration, within the framework of section 46 any other material or relevant facts including, as this Court had held in LICs case (supra), a draft revised development plan even if it was not published. 16. In the present case, the notification dated 12th July, 1999 proposing a revision of the boundary of certain precincts and the inclusion of certain new precincts such as the Marine Drive precinct and Old Cuffe Parade precinct in the list of heritage precincts does constitute relevant material for the purposes of section 46 of the Act which the Planning Authority is bound to countenance in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court interpreting the statutory provision. The reliance which is sought to be placed by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Hoarding owners on the provisions of sections 34, 37 and 137 of the Act is clearly misconceived. Regulation 67(3) provides that the list of buildings, artefacts, structures and precincts of historical, aesthetical, architectural, or cultural value to which the regulation applies shall not form part of the regulation for the purpose of section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 67 further provides that the list may be supplemented, altered, deleted or modified from time to time by Government on receipt of proposals from the Commissioner or from the said Heritage Conservation Committee or by Government suo motu. By its very nature, the list is not unalterable this being the clear intendment of Regulation 67(3). Moreover, Regulation 67(3) stipulates that the list itself is not a part of Regulation 67 for the purposes of section 37 of the Act. Section 37, it must be noted deals with the procedure for modification of a final development plan. No publication, therefore, in the Official Gazette is necessary as in the case of a proposal for a modification which falls within the scope and purview of section 37 of the Act. 17. Section 37, it must be noted deals with the procedure for modification of a final development plan. No publication, therefore, in the Official Gazette is necessary as in the case of a proposal for a modification which falls within the scope and purview of section 37 of the Act. 17. At this stage, it would also be apposite to refer to the terms of reference of the Heritage Conservation Committee which has not constituted under the notification dated 25th April, 1995 of the State Government Clause 4.2 of the notification empowers the Committee to prepare a supplementary list of buildings, precincts, areas, artifacts, structures of historical, aesthetical, architectural or cultural value to which Regulation 67 would apply. Clause 4.9 of the notification empowers the Committee to prepare guidelines relating to design elements and conservation principles to be adhered to and to prepare other guidelines for the purposes of Regulation 67. The Heritage Conservation Committee was, therefore, clearly within the scope of its statutory powers in acting in the manner in which it did. The judgment of this Court in L.I.C. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay, Writ Petition No. 2944 of 1982 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 6th March, 1984 has already been adverted to earlier in the context of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N. Rao (supra). The judgment in the LIC case provides support for the proposition that under section 46 not only the published plan, but all the relevant factors must be taken into consideration. The paramount consideration must necessarily be that the public interest in the implementation of the development plan is advanced and not thwarted. As the Division Bench held in LIC "to do otherwise would result in the development plan and development process being set at naught for private aggrandisement and the negation of public good". The Court cannot countenance a proposition to the contrary. 18. Significantly, the conduct of the Municipal Corporation shows that numerous proposals for development within the Marine Drive precinct and Old Cuffe Parade precinct were referred to the Heritage Conservation Committee by the Corporation and had been considered by the Committee on account of the fact that such development is within the draft plan of the heritage precincts. 18. Significantly, the conduct of the Municipal Corporation shows that numerous proposals for development within the Marine Drive precinct and Old Cuffe Parade precinct were referred to the Heritage Conservation Committee by the Corporation and had been considered by the Committee on account of the fact that such development is within the draft plan of the heritage precincts. Details of several such proposals have been adverted to in paragraph 10 of an affidavit dated 11th December, 2003 filed by the public interest petitioner, Dr. Anahita Pandole, before the Court. That is how, the Municipal Corporation had correctly construed the effect of the notification dated 12th July, 1999. Therefore, until the Municipal Commissioner filed his affidavit in this Court, the Municipal Corporation had always understood the law to apply to proposed precincts also. That was the correct appreciation of the position in law having regard to the provisions of section 46 as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, there has been a volte face by the Municipal Commissioner. Surely, the Municipal Commissioner should have been conscious of the need to ensure consistency particularly when a consistent line of thinking that has been adopted was in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Municipal Commissioner has unfortunately failed to observe this in forming the view which he did in respect of "unlisted" heritage precincts. The validity of the Municipal Commissioners approach. 19. Equally fundamental, to our mind, is the objection to the validity of the approach which has been adopted by the Municipal Commissioner in the present case. The Heritage Conservation Committee is an expert body charged and vested with a special obligation under the provisions contained in D.C. Regulation 67. Regulation 67(2) mandates that the Commissioner "shall act on the advice of in consultation with" the Heritage Conservation Committee. The power of the Municipal Commissioner to overrule the decision of the Committee is confined to exceptional cases and for reasons to be recorded in writing. The power is to be exercised by the Commissioner himself and is not to be delegated to any other Officer. In our judgment delivered on 19th April, 2003, we had occasion to consider the status of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the role and position of the Municipal Commissioner in relation to the recommendations of the Committee. The power is to be exercised by the Commissioner himself and is not to be delegated to any other Officer. In our judgment delivered on 19th April, 2003, we had occasion to consider the status of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the role and position of the Municipal Commissioner in relation to the recommendations of the Committee. We have held that the Municipal Commissioner must invariably act in accordance with the expert recommendations of the Committee. Committee consists of experts drawn from the areas of urban conservation, environment and history, apart from experts with experience in structural engineering. What the Municipal Commissioner has done in the present case is simply to reject the view of the Heritage Conservation Committee and to substitute his own personal opinion for the view which has been formed by the Heritage Committee. What the Municipal Commissioner does is to tell us that the does not agree with the Committee. There are no exceptional reasons for the Municipal Commissioner to have overridden the Heritage Committee. What is all the worse in the present case is that the Municipal Commissioner has chosen to do so on grounds which are infirm and in spite of the fact that the approach of the Committee did not suffer from error. This Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is and should be manifestly unconcerned about the Municipal Commissioners view of urban aesthetics. However, when the Municipal Commissioner allows that view to transgress the restraints on the exercise of his own administrative powers, the Court is duty bound to interfere. The Municipal Commissioner seeks to assert and, we hope with a degree of responsibility and seriousness that "heritage listed precincts encompass vast areas" and that certain hoardings like the ones at Marine Drive have "become part of Citys grandeur and unique character especially in the night." That a "vast area" is brought within the discipline of orderly urban planning ought not to be a matter of regret, least of all for the Municipal Commissioner. The Marine Drive precinct is a vista of unquestionable natural beauty. For a city woefully starved of recreational areas, this is a vista of unparalleled importance. But the Commissioner would have us believe, despite a strong opinion of the Heritage Conservation Committee to the contrary, that hoardings add to its "grandeur". The Marine Drive precinct is a vista of unquestionable natural beauty. For a city woefully starved of recreational areas, this is a vista of unparalleled importance. But the Commissioner would have us believe, despite a strong opinion of the Heritage Conservation Committee to the contrary, that hoardings add to its "grandeur". While we refrain from commenting on the personal view of the Commissioner, that view cannot supplant the considered view of the Committee just because it is one which appeals to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is a custodian of the public interest. The consequence of what he has done is to unabashedly protect the interests of hoarding owners and advertisers. The Commissioner holds that hoardings cannot be totally banned within Heritage precincts as this part of the city is the commercial hub and financial centre and that hoardings are a vital and necessary part of the same. The Municipal Commissioner in holding thus, has clearly demonstrated ignorance of the relevant provisions of Regulation 67, the underlying object and purpose for which these provisions were introduced, the necessity for preservation and conservation of heritage buildings and the deleterious impact, which the Heritage Conservation Committee noted, of the unrestricted proliferation of hoardings upon heritage structures and heritage precincts. The infirmity in the approach of the Municipal Commissioner is that he has substituted what is purely his personal opinion for the well considered decision of an expert body. The framing of Guidelines by the Heritage Conservation Committee. The validity of the Committee's approach : 20. Regulation 67(2) stipulates that no development or redevelopment or engineering operation or additions, alterations, repairs, renovation including the painting of buildings, replacement of special features or demolition of the whole or any part of listed heritage buildings or precincts shall be allowed except with the prior written permission of the Commissioner who is to act on the advice of/in consultation with the Heritage Conservation Committee. The expressions "development", "redevelopment", "additions", "alterations", "renovation", and "replacement of special features" cannot be restrictively construed. Section 2(7) defines the expression "development" to include inter alia the making of any material change in any building or land or the use thereof. It also includes any material structural change in any heritage building or its precincts. The expressions "development", "redevelopment", "additions", "alterations", "renovation", and "replacement of special features" cannot be restrictively construed. Section 2(7) defines the expression "development" to include inter alia the making of any material change in any building or land or the use thereof. It also includes any material structural change in any heritage building or its precincts. Sections 2(13-B) and 2(13-C) define the expressions "Heritage building' and 'Heritage precinct' thus : "(13-B) "Heritage building" means a building possessing architectural, aesthetic, historic or cultural values which is declared as heritage building by the Planning Authority in whose jurisdiction such building is situated; (13-C) "Heritage precinct" means an area comprising heritage building or buildings and precincts thereof or related places." 21. By Clause 4.4 of the terms of its reference as delineated in the notification dated 25th April, 1995, the Heritage Conservation Committee is empowered to advise the Municipal Commissioner in the operation of Regulation 48 to regulate or eliminate/erection of outside advertisements/billboards on the facade of buildings. However, it would be impermissible to construe Clause 4.4 as being exhaustive of the power of the Heritage Committee in relation to hoardings and billboards. The Heritage Conservation Committee has been assigned a special obligation in controlling development and permissions in relation thereto of heritage buildings and precincts. In view of the broad sweep of the expression "development" under the Act, the Regulation of hoardings and billboards does fall within the ambit of Regulation 67. The provisions of Regulation 67 will be defeated-and with it the salutary public interest in conserving and protecting heritage structures and precincts if the regulation of hoardings and billboards is to be carved out of Regulation 67. We decide to do so. The power to frame guidelines is also expressly conferred upon the Committee by Clause 4.9 of its terms of reference. These guidelines are relatable to design elements and to conservation principles that must be adhered to. The Heritage Committee is also empowered to prepare other guidelines for the purpose of Regulation 67. By Clause 4.10, the Heritage Committee can frame special regulations for Heritage precincts. This being the width of the power of the Heritage Committee, it would be impermissible for the Court by a process of restrictive interpretation to confine the power of the Committee in relation to hoardings only to Clause 4.4 of its terms of reference or to DCR 48. This being the width of the power of the Heritage Committee, it would be impermissible for the Court by a process of restrictive interpretation to confine the power of the Committee in relation to hoardings only to Clause 4.4 of its terms of reference or to DCR 48. Such a restrictive interpretation would manifestly not advance the salutary public interest that the constitution of the Heritage Committee is sought to subserve and must be eschewed. 22. The submission that the Heritage Committee should have framed the guidelines, then heard the parties and finalised them thereafter cannot be accepted. There is no question of the principles of natural justice being observed or for that matter of being violated in the framing of guidelines. When the State or its instrumentality frames guidelines, the object is to channelise administrative discretion, promote consistency, provide transparency and obviate the charge of being arbitrary. The Committee has furnished cogent justification for adopting the guidelines which was to avoid arbitrariness and to ensure uniformity and consistency. The guidelines, it must be noted, are not a fanciful creation but are firmly based upon the provisions of Regulation 67. From the report of the Heritage Conservation Committee, it is also abundantly clear that the guidelines have not precluded it from considering individual cases and that individual cases have in fact, been considered. The Committee has observed that it was open to it to permit display in exceptional cases if certain conditions are satisfied through these by their very nature will be relatively few. The Committee has followed a rational procedure by furnishing a sufficient opportunity to the hoarding owners and advertisers to submit representations before it. Site visits were conducted by the Committee and oral hearing were convened before it. Finally, in order to deal with this aspect of the matter, it would be instructive to advert to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in (Shri Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh)3, 1974(1) S.C.C. 534 . In that case, the Supreme Court held that it is open to the Government to adopt a policy not to make a grant at all or to make a grant only to a certain class and not to a certain other class though such a decision must be based on considerations relevant to the subject-matter on hand. In that case, the Supreme Court held that it is open to the Government to adopt a policy not to make a grant at all or to make a grant only to a certain class and not to a certain other class though such a decision must be based on considerations relevant to the subject-matter on hand. Adverting to the summation of law in Halsbury's Law of England (Vol. 1, Fourth Edition para 33), the Court accepted the principle that "a public body endowed with a statutory discretion may legitimately adopt general rules or principles of policy to guide itself as to the manner of exercising its own discretion in individual cases, provided that such rules or principles are legally relevant to the exercise of its powers, consistent with the purpose of the enabling legislation and not arbitrary or capricious. Nevertheless, it must not disable itself from exercising a genuine discretion in a particular case directly involving individual interests." Hence the authority must be prepared to consider making an exception to the general rule if the circumstances of the case warrant special treatment. 23. The Counsel for the Hoarding owners and advertisers sought to place reliance on Clause (ii) of the operative directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 19th April, 2003 and submitted that the Heritage Conservation Committee has acted outside its jurisdiction in considering the issue of unlisted heritage precincts. The submission is devoid of merit. Judgments, it is trite law, cannot be construed as one would a provision of a statute. By the judgment of this Court the Heritage Conservation Committee was called upon to discharge its function under Regulation 67. If the Heritage Committee is required by law to consider a 'proposal' within the meaning of section 46, as we have held that it is, the judgment of this Court did not restrict the ambit of the jurisdiction or function of the Committee. Stray or isolated words in a judgment of the Court cannot be torn out of context. We reject the submission. 24. We are of the view that the decision which has been arrived at by the Municipal Commissioner is patently perverse. The decision is based on a wrong and incorrect perception of the nature of his powers under Regulation 67(2). Stray or isolated words in a judgment of the Court cannot be torn out of context. We reject the submission. 24. We are of the view that the decision which has been arrived at by the Municipal Commissioner is patently perverse. The decision is based on a wrong and incorrect perception of the nature of his powers under Regulation 67(2). The decision is based on a demonstrably incorrect appreciation of the applicable principles of law embodied in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Municipal Commissioner has not considered 22 cases on the ground that proceedings in respect of such hoardings are pending before this Court. Apart from this, the Municipal Commissioner has failed to apply his mind to 35 hoardings on the ground that they are situated within railway premises. No findings have been given thereon though 13 out of the 35 hoardings are on or in the compound of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, a grade one heritage structure which is listed at Sr. No. 131 of the Heritage List. Section 328(3)(c) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 excludes certain sign boards from the purview of the expression "sky-sign". The excluded sign boards are defined so as to consist of any word, letter, model, sign, device or representation relating exclusively to the business of a railway company. A similar provision is contained in proviso (c) and (d) to section 328-A. Guideline 14 of the policy guidelines framed by the Municipal Corporation also relates to advertisements regarding the business of the railways displayed within railway premises except those fronting any street. The Municipal Commissioner evidently failed to notice any of these governing statutory provisions. The hoardings in question are admittedly not of the exempted category since they are plainly of a commercial nature. Yet the Municipal Commissioner has chosen to look askance on the basis of the precious reason that they are within railway premises. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Municipal Commissioner has manifestly failed to discharge the statutory obligation imposed upon him in the discharge of his duties in accordance with law. 25. The Municipal Commissioner wholly rejects the recommendation of the Heritage Conservation Committee in relation to hoardings situated in Heritage precincts, hoardings situated in the compound of Grade-II structures and hoardings on all Grade III structures. 25. The Municipal Commissioner wholly rejects the recommendation of the Heritage Conservation Committee in relation to hoardings situated in Heritage precincts, hoardings situated in the compound of Grade-II structures and hoardings on all Grade III structures. Grade III structures have been excluded in one fell stroke without an application of mind to the relevant provisions. Grade I, Grade II and Grade III areas are defined thus is Regulation 67(10) : "A. Definition-- Heritage Grade I comprises of buildings, and precincts of national or historical importance, embodying excellence in architectural style, design, technology and material usage; they may be associated with a great historical event, personality, movement or institution. They have been and are, the prime landmarks of the City. Heritage Grade II (A B) comprises of buildings, of regional or local importance, possessing special architectural or aesthetical merit, cultural or historical value, though of a lower scale than in Heritage Grade I. They are local landmarks, contributing to the image and identity of the City. They may be the work of master craftsmen, or may be models of proportion and ornamentation, or designed to suit particular climate. Heritage Grade III comprises of buildings, and precincts of importance for town scape; they evoke architectural aesthetic or sociological interest though not as much as in Heritage Grade-II. These contribute to determine the character of the locality, and can be representative of life style of a particular community or region and, may also be distinguished by setting on a streetline, or special character of the facade and uniformity of height, width and scale." The Regulation requires that Grade I "richly deserves careful preservation". Grade II is stated to require "intelligent conservation". Grade III is stated to deserve intelligent conservation, though on a lesser scale than Grade II "and special protection of unique features and attributes." The scope for changes is also laid down in Regulation 67(10) thus: "C. Scope for changes-- Grade 1: No interventions would be permitted either on the exterior or interior unless it is necessary in the interest of strengthening, and prolonging, the life of the buildings or precincts or any part or features thereof. For this purpose, absolutely essential and minimal changes would be allowed and they must be in accordance with the original. Grade-II(A) internal changes, adaptive reuse and external changes will be generally allowed but will be subject to strict scrutiny. For this purpose, absolutely essential and minimal changes would be allowed and they must be in accordance with the original. Grade-II(A) internal changes, adaptive reuse and external changes will be generally allowed but will be subject to strict scrutiny. Care would be taken to ensure the conservation of all special aspects for which it is included in Heritage Grade-II. GradeII-(B)-- In addition to above extension or additional buildings in the same plot or compounded could, in certain circumstances, be allowed provided that the extension/additional building is in harmony with (and does not detract from) existing heritage building(s) or precincts especially in terms of height and facade. Grade-III External and internal changes, and adaptive reuse would generally be allowed. Changes can include extensions, additional buildings in the same plot or compound provided that extension/additional building is in harmony with and does not detract from the existing heritage building/precinct especially in terms of height and/or facade. Reconstruction may be allowed when the building is structurally weak or unsafe or when it has been affected by accidental fire or any other calamity or if reconstruction is required to consume the permissible FSI and no option other than reconstruction is available. Reconstruction may also be allowed in case of those buildings which attract the provisions of Regulations 33(6), 33(7), 33(9) and Appendix II and Appendix III of Development Control Regulations, 1991. Reconstruction may be allowed in those buildings being repaired/reconstructed by MHADA. However, unless absolutely essential, nothing should spoil or destroy and special features or attributes for which it is placed in the Heritage List." 26. The Municipal Commissioner evidently ignores that for Grade I buildings and precincts "absolutely essential and minimal changes would be allowed and they must be in accord with the original". For Grade II A, adaptive reuse or external changes are "subject to strict scrutiny". For Grade II B, the need to preserve harmony and the need not to detract from existing heritage buildings and precincts, especially in terms of height and facade is emphasised. Yet the Commissioner permits all hoardings in the compounds of Grade II structures, irrespective of height and facade. Even in the case of Grade II buildings, the regulation requires that "unless absolutely essential nothing should spoil or destroy any special features or attributes for which it is placed in the Heritage List". Yet the Commissioner permits all hoardings in the compounds of Grade II structures, irrespective of height and facade. Even in the case of Grade II buildings, the regulation requires that "unless absolutely essential nothing should spoil or destroy any special features or attributes for which it is placed in the Heritage List". None of these vital principles finds mention in the approach of the Municipal Commissioner as elucidated before this Court. The view taken by the Municipal Commissioner in so far as he differed with the Heritage Conservation Committee is manifestly unsustainable and must, therefore, be quashed and set aside. 27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we will now proceed to deal briefly with the facts of individual writ petitions which have been argued before us. For convenience of reference, we had directed the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the public interest petitioners to prepare in the form of a chart, a summary containing: (i) The name of the petitioners, together with the number of the writ petition; (ii) The location of the hoarding; (iii) The entry in the heritage list under D.C. Regulation 67; (iv) The relevant reference in the report of the Heritage Conservation Committee; (v) The reference to the relevant pages from the affidavit of the Municipal Corporation; and (vi) The recommendation of the Expert Committee appointed by this Court. The hoarding owners and advertisers who had lodged objections or filed petitions before the Court were permitted to correct any mistake which may have inadvertently occurred while preparing the chart. No mistake has been drawn to the attention of the Court. For convenience of reference, the aforesaid chart is annexed at the end of the judgment. The submissions on law which have been urged on behalf of the owners and advertisers have already been dealt with earlier. 28. The hoarding in the present case is referred to at Sr. No. 78 on page 121 of the report of the Expert Committee, appointed by this Court. The Heritage Conservation Committee deals with the case at Serial No. 78 on page 72 of the report of the Committee (the second list). The hoarding is shown to be in the compound of a heritage structure at Sr. No. 468 of the Heritage List. Entry 468 refers to a building between the R.I. and the Tata show room and is shown to be residential and private. The hoarding is shown to be in the compound of a heritage structure at Sr. No. 468 of the Heritage List. Entry 468 refers to a building between the R.I. and the Tata show room and is shown to be residential and private. The submission of the petitioners before the Court was that the hoarding is in the compound of an agiary which is a religious structure and not residential and which would be a public trust and not private in nature. In so far as the report of the Heritage Committee is concerned, Sr. No. 78 shows the hoarding to be in the compound of a heritage structure at Sr. No. 468 of the Heritage List. The submission is also that the area in question is not a heritage precinct in the notification of 24th April, 1995 and that the map of the Gamdevi precinct does not include the aforesaid location. Additionally it was sought to be urged that the notification which was issued on 12th July, 1999 proposing to extend the area of the Gamdevi precinct is not valid on the ground that a copy thereof was not furnished to the petitioners and that it was not appropriately published. 29. The Heritage Conservation Committee has visited the site and has duly considered the submissions of the parties. The Committee is of the view that the hoarding is liable to be removed since it offends against Guideline 3 viz. that the hoarding is in the compulsory open space of listed heritage buildings/structures and a building/structure within heritage precincts. Prior thereto, the Expert Committee appointed by this Court had also upon due scrutiny of the location of the hoarding come to the conclusion that it is a hoarding situated in the compounded of a heritage structure and therefore violates Guideline 16(g) framed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Guideline 16(g) states that no hoarding shall be permitted on buildings of archaeological, architectural, aesthetic, historical or heritage importance as per D.C. Regulation 48(3). In the present case, both the Expert Committee appointed by this Court as well as the Heritage Committee have carefully considered the location of the hoarding and the question as to whether the hoarding should be retained. In the present case, both the Expert Committee appointed by this Court as well as the Heritage Committee have carefully considered the location of the hoarding and the question as to whether the hoarding should be retained. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Heritage Conservation Committee or to enter upon a purely factual dispute in regard to the location of the hoarding in view of the fact that the Expert Committee appointed by this Court and the Heritage Conservation Committee have both duly verified the location after site visit. We have already dealt with the issue relating to the notification of 12th July, 1999 in so far as it proposes an extension of the Gemdevi precinct in the earlier part of our judgment and for the reasons already indicated, we find no merit in the challenge thereto. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 30. This petition relates to three hoardings situated on the Capitol Building, Opposite C.S.T. Railway Station. Capitol Cinema is listed at Item No. 20 in the Heritage List and is a Grade II-B structure. It is also a part of a heritage precinct listed at Sr. No. 633 of the Heritage List. The Heritage Committee has hence correctly and justifiably come to the conclusion that the hoarding is liable to be removed on the ground that it violates Guidelines 1 and 2 of the guidelines framed by the Committee. In the present case, it must be noted that the Bombay Municipal Corporation has also accepted the recommendation of the Heritage Committee since the hoardings are liable to be removed on the ground that they are situated on the facade or on top of the terrace or roof of a listed heritage building. The same recommendation was made by the Expert Committee appointed by this Court on the ground that the hoarding violated Guidelines 16(b) and 16(g) of the guidelines of the Municipal Corporation. We find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 31. In the present case, the hoarding is situated on the Marine Drive, Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Road. The hoarding has two display boards each admeasuring 30 ft. x 20 ft. The hoarding is situated in the compound of Western Railways, outside Charni Road platform. We find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 31. In the present case, the hoarding is situated on the Marine Drive, Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Road. The hoarding has two display boards each admeasuring 30 ft. x 20 ft. The hoarding is situated in the compound of Western Railways, outside Charni Road platform. In the present case, the hoarding falls under the Marine Drive precinct proposed under the notification of 12th July, 1999. Both the Expert Committee appointed by this Court as well as the Heritage Committee have come to the conclusion that the hoarding is liable to be removed. The Heritage Committee found that the hoarding violates Guidelines 4 and 5. The conclusion which has been arrived at by the Heritage Committee is correct in view of the discussion in the main body of this judgment particularly in view of the provisions of section 46 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. We do not find any merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 32. The hoarding in the present case admeasures 20 ft. x 30 ft. and is situated in the Loyalka Building Compound at Chowpatty, Bandstand. The buildings at Chowpatty sea face have been included at Sr. No. 458 of the Heritage List. The Heritage Conservation Committee has listed this hoarding at Sr. No. 29 of the second list and was of the view that the hoarding is liable to be removed as violating Guideline No. 3. The Committee has furnished reasons which are relevant, material and germane. The Expert Committee appointed by this Court had also recommended that the hoarding is liable to be removed. We do not find any merit in the petition which is rejected. 33. In the present case, the hoarding has two display boards each admeasuring 40 ft. x 20 ft. erected in the periphery of the gymkhana ground of the Wilson College at Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Road, Marine Drive. The hoarding is part of the Marine Drive percinct in the notification of 12th July, 1999 which has been considered in the body of the judgment. The Heritage Committee has come to the conclusion that the hoarding violates guidelines 4 (listed public open space and any public open space within a heritage precinct). The approach of the Heritage Committee does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is rejected. 34. The Heritage Committee has come to the conclusion that the hoarding violates guidelines 4 (listed public open space and any public open space within a heritage precinct). The approach of the Heritage Committee does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is rejected. 34. In the present case, the hoarding is situated on a building known as Gokul Niwas facing Chowpatty, at N.A. Purandare Marg, Chowpatty, Mumbai. The hoarding has been listed at Sr. No. 19 of the second list prepared by the Heritage Committee. The Expert Committee appointed by this Court inter alia referred to the fact that the hoarding violates Guideline 16(g) framed by the Municipal Corporation. The buildings facing Chowpatty fall in Sr. No. 458 of the Heritage List. The Heritage Committee has also found that there is a breach of Guidelines 1 and 3. Having regard to these finds, we do not find any merit in the petition which is rejected. 35. Both these petitions relate to hoardings on the same building, as W.P. (Lodging) 3184 of 2003 but are situated on the terrace. For the reasons already noted above, while considering the companion petition, there is not merit in these petitions which are accordingly rejected. 36. This is a hoarding admeasuring 30 ft. x 20 ft. affixed on the wall on the North end of the Oriental Bank Building at M.G. Road, Mumbai. The Oriental Bank Building is shown at Sr. No. 176 in the Heritage List and is a Grade II-A structure. The hoarding is an Item 24 of the first list of the Heritage Conservation Committee and violates Guidelines 1 and 2. The Expert Committee had earlier found a violation of municipal Guidelines 16(g). Both the Expert Committee as well as the Heritage Conservation Committee have come to the conclusion that the hoarding is liable to be removed on the basis of cogent, relevant and germane material. We do not find any merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 37. In the present case, also the hoarding is situated on the Oriental Bank Building and is at Item 22 of the first list of the Heritage Committee. Both the Committees have correctly come to the conclusion that the hoarding cannot be retained. For the reasons already indicated while dismissing Writ Petition (L) No. 3187 of 2003, this petition shall stand rejected. 38. Both the Committees have correctly come to the conclusion that the hoarding cannot be retained. For the reasons already indicated while dismissing Writ Petition (L) No. 3187 of 2003, this petition shall stand rejected. 38. The present case relates to the illuminated hoarding admeasuring 16 ft. x 12 ft. erected in the compound of Islam Club situated at N.A. Purandare Marg, Chowpatty. Chowpatty sea face buildings have been listed at Sr. No. 458 of the Heritage List. The Heritage Committee has dealt with this hoarding at Sr. No. 22 in its second list and has come to the conclusion that Guidelines 1 and 3 of its guidelines are violated by the hoarding. The Expert Committee appointed by this Court was also of the view that the hoarding was liable to be removed since it was in violation of Guidelines 16(a) and (g) framed by the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation had not accepted the recommendation and was of the view that the hoarding should be retained since it is on a Grade III building. We have specifically disapproved of the approach of the Municipal Commissioner and overruled his findings in regard to Grade III structures. For the reasons already indicated in the body of the main judgment, we are of the view that the Municipal Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the well considered findings of the Heritage Conservation Committee. We do not find any merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 39. This hoarding is situated on the terrace of Dev-Prakash Co-operative Housing Society facing Chowpatty. Chowpatty sea face buildings are listed at Sr. No. 458 in the Heritage List. The Heritage Conservation Committee found that the hoarding violates Guideline 1. The view of the Heritage Committee is correct. The Municipal Commissioner was not justified in directing the retention of the hoarding merely because it falls in a Grade III structure. We have come to the conclusion that the finding of the Municipal Commissioner on Grade III structures is contrary to law. We do not find any merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 40. This hoarding is situated at the corner of Queens Road at Sonapur Street in the compound of the Sunni Muslim Burial Ground. We have come to the conclusion that the finding of the Municipal Commissioner on Grade III structures is contrary to law. We do not find any merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 40. This hoarding is situated at the corner of Queens Road at Sonapur Street in the compound of the Sunni Muslim Burial Ground. The Heritage Conservation Committee has been of the view that the hoarding is liable to be removed on the ground that it guideline 5 (hoardings on or across public streets/roads within heritage precincts). The hoarding falls within the proposed Marine Drive precinct in the notification dated 12th July, 1999 which has been dealt with in the main body of this judgment. For the reasons already indicated in the body of the main judgment, there is no merit in the petition which is rejected. 41. In these three cases, the Municipal Corporation has accepted the recommendation of the Heritage Conservation Committee on the ground that the hoardings fall within a heritage Grade II- A structure and are liable to be removed. The hoardings are situated on the wall of the north end of the Oriental Bank Building situated at M.G. Road which is listed as Item No. 176 in the Heritage List. There is no merit in the petitions. The petitions are accordingly rejected. 42. The hoarding in the present case is in the premises of the Wilson College campus in front of the hostel situated on Pandita Ramabai Marg. The hoarding is situated in the Gamdevi precincts at Item 432 of the Heritage List. Both the Expert Committee appointed by this Court as well as Heritage Conservation Committee are of the view that the hoarding is liable to be removed. The hoarding is at Item 9 of the second list scrutinised by the Heritage Conservation Committee . The Committee has found that the hoarding must be removed since it violates Guidelines 1 and 3. The Municipal Commissioner did not accept the recommendation on the ground that the hoarding was in a proposed heritage precinct. For the reasons already indicated while dealing with the case of the proposed heritage precincts, we are of the view is erroneous. The petition is accordingly rejected. 43. In this case hoarding has two display boards and is situated on the wall of the Temple View building at Hughes Road. For the reasons already indicated while dealing with the case of the proposed heritage precincts, we are of the view is erroneous. The petition is accordingly rejected. 43. In this case hoarding has two display boards and is situated on the wall of the Temple View building at Hughes Road. The hoarding stands in the Gamdevi precinct at item 432 of the Heritage List. Both the Heritage Committee as well as the Expert Committee appointed by this Court are of the view that the hoarding must be removed. The Heritage Committee has noted that the hoarding violates Guideline 1 of the guidelines framed by it. We do not find any merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 44. These three hoardings are situated on Surya Prakash building at Babulnath Road facing Chowpatty. The buildings facing Chowpatty are listed at item 458 in the Heritage List. The decision of the Heritage Conservation Committee is in accordance with law. The Expert Committee appointed by this Court was also of the view that the hoardings are liable to be removed. There is no merit in the petitions which are accordingly rejected. 45. In the present case the hoarding is situated on the periphery of the Volleyball Court in the compound of the Wilson College at Chowpatty which is listed at Sr. No. 457 of the Heritage List. Both the Heritage Committee as well as the Expert Committee appointed by this Court have concurred in holding that the hoarding has to be removed. The Heritage Committee has inter alia come to the conclusion that the hoarding falls within a compulsory open space within a heritage precinct and therefore, cannot be maintained. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 46. In the present case the Heritage Conservation Committee has come to the conclusion that the heritage regulations are not applicable to the hoarding in question. In the circumstances, we are of the view that it would be appropriate and proper to delink this matter from this group of petitions and direct that the matter shall be listed separately. 47. This petition deals with hoardings put up on six buildings, Ismail Building, Wilson College, Prem Puri Ashram Building, Indian Mercantile Mansion Building and Chitnoy Mansion Building. Ismail Building is a Grade II- A structure which is at Sr. 47. This petition deals with hoardings put up on six buildings, Ismail Building, Wilson College, Prem Puri Ashram Building, Indian Mercantile Mansion Building and Chitnoy Mansion Building. Ismail Building is a Grade II- A structure which is at Sr. No. 107 of the Heritage List and the Municipal Corporation has accepted the recommendation of the Heritage Committee that the hoarding should be removed. One hoarding is situated in the compound of the St. Andrews Boys Hostel of Wilson College situated at Marine Drive which is a Grade III structure listed at Sr. No. 457 of the Heritage List. Three hoardings are situated in the compound and the wall of a building known as Prem Puri Ashram Building which is a Grade-III listed structure (Sr. No. 470) of the Heritage List. Two hoardings are situated on the Indian Mercantile Mansion Building which is a Grade II-A structure listed at Sr. No. 216. (These latter two are to be removed even according to the Municipal Corporation). The last set of hoardings are situated at Chitnoy Mansion which is a Grade III structure listed at Sr. No. 443. Both the Heritage Committee as well as the Expert Committee appointed by this Court have concurred in holding that these hoardings cannot be retained. The Municipal Corporation has also accepted the position that hoardings on Grade II-A structures cannot be retained. In so far as Grade III structures are concerned, we have for the reasons already indicated affirmed the view of the Heritage Committee and held that the Commissioner was in error in overruling the former. We do not find any reason to depart from that conclusion. The petition is accordingly rejected. 48. The hoarding in the present case is situated at Wilson College situated at Marine Drive. Wilson College is a Grade- III heritage structure listed at Sr. No. 457. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Heritage Committee as well as the Expert Committee that the hoarding should not be retained. The petition is rejected. 49. The hoarding in Writ Petition (Lodging) 2901 of 2003 is situated at the corner of Oval Maidan on its boundary opposite Eros Cinema. Oval Maidan is listed as a Grade-I precinct at Sr. No. 75 of the Heritage List. The hoarding is clearly unlawful and cannot be allowed to be retained. The petition is rejected. 49. The hoarding in Writ Petition (Lodging) 2901 of 2003 is situated at the corner of Oval Maidan on its boundary opposite Eros Cinema. Oval Maidan is listed as a Grade-I precinct at Sr. No. 75 of the Heritage List. The hoarding is clearly unlawful and cannot be allowed to be retained. The hoarding in writ petition (Lodging) 2902 of 2003 is also situated at the Oval Maidan on the Northern boundary. In view of the fact that the Oval Maidan is listed as a Grade-I precinct at Sr. No. 75 of the Heritage List, this hoarding also cannot be retained. Both the Heritage Committee correctly arrived at their recommendations. The hoardings are liable to be removed even according to the position of the Municipal Corporation. There is no merit in these petitions which are accordingly rejected. 50. These hoardings are attached to the Ismail Building situated at Hutatma Chowk, Fort, Mumbai. This building is on D.N. Road. Sr. No. 107 of the Heritage List specifically lists all buildings on D.N. Road with a special focus on Fort House. These structures are listed as Grade-II structures. The Heritage Committee as well as the Expert Committee have correctly come to the conclusion that these hoardings have to be removed. There is no merit in the petitions which are accordingly rejected. 51. The hoarding which admeasures 30 ft. x 20 ft. is an illuminated hoarding at Loyalka Compound, Bandstand, Chowpatty. The hoarding is situated in the proposed Marine Drive precinct. We have already covered the effect of the notification dated 12th July, 1999 in the body of this judgment. For the reasons already indicated. The aforesaid hoarding has to be removed. The Heritage Conservation Committee was correct in arriving at the aforesaid recommendation. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 52. This hoarding is situated on a building known as Beach View which falls within the purview of Sr. No. 458 of the Heritage List. The hoarding is at Item 3 of the second list of the Heritage Committee. The Heritage Committee has found that the hoarding cannot be retained in view of Guideline I. Even the Expert Committee appointed by this Court found that there is a violation of Municipal Guideline 16(g). No. 458 of the Heritage List. The hoarding is at Item 3 of the second list of the Heritage Committee. The Heritage Committee has found that the hoarding cannot be retained in view of Guideline I. Even the Expert Committee appointed by this Court found that there is a violation of Municipal Guideline 16(g). Both the Heritage Committee as well as the Expert Committee were, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that these hoardings have to be removed. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 53. Our judgment disposes of the issue relating to the hoardings in heritage structures and heritage precincts in Mumbai. That is one of then issues raised in this writ petition. We direct that the Municipal Corporation shall take steps to implement the report of the Heritage Conservation Committee within a period of four weeks from today, save and except in respect of any petition or objection filed by the hoarding owners and advertisers that is still pending before this Court and in which, as a result of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court, steps for removal of the hoardings are not to be taken until the objection or petition is disposed of. We specifically hold that the decision of the Municipal Commissioner in so far as he disagreed with the Heritage Conservation Committee stands quashed and set aside. Petition rejected. -----