ORDER : K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., IAs Nos. 275-77 The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India (Ministry of Railways) submitted that the Advertisement Policy suggested by EPCA is not wholly fair and reasonable in regard to the advertisements put up on the railway lands, especially, the Unipoll advertisement billboards. After hearing both sides, we feel that the grievances raised on behalf of the Railways need to be considered by EPCA. The respondents are, therefore, given the liberty to file detailed representations/suggestions before EPCA within three weeks. The same may be considered by EPCA and it may file its report to this Court within three weeks from the date of receipt of the representations. 2. List on 30-10-2009. 3. Interim stay, if any, is extended till then. IA No. 317 4. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) states that the technical parameters and specifications set out in the Advertisement Policy framed by EPCA is fully acceptable to DMRC but it had strong reservations insofar as the Policy obliged it to seek prior permission of MCD/NDMC for putting up advertisements on its own land and further insofar as it made DMRC liable to share its revenue arising from advertisements with MCD/NDMC on expiry of the period of five years. In this regard, Mr. Kumar invited the Court's attention to Para 3 of the Delhi Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2008 where it is stated as follows: "3. Role of Municipal Bodies (MCD/NDMC).In the areas controlled by MCD outdoor advertisement devices visible to the public, are governed by provisions of Sections 142 to 146 of the Delhi Municipal Act. As per the provisions of the DMC Act, prior permission of the Commissioner is needed to display any advertisement to public view." He next invited the Court's attention to Para 9.1 of the Policy where it is stated as follows: "9.1 Revenue sharing. The Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2008 will apply to all advertisements irrespective of the jurisdiction of land. However, the revenue sharing model will differ in different cases. 1. * * * 2. DMRC will be exempt from sharing revenue of advertisements for the next five years. 3. The Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2008 will apply to all advertisements irrespective of the jurisdiction of land. However, the revenue sharing model will differ in different cases. 1. * * * 2. DMRC will be exempt from sharing revenue of advertisements for the next five years. 3. * * *" Mr Kumar contended that the rights and liabilities of DMRC were governed by the provisions of the Delhi Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 and the recommendations of EPCA for seeking prior permission of MCD/NDMC and on the issue of revenue sharing were contrary to those provisions and amounted to infringement of the DMRC's legal rights. 5. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of MCD, on the other hand, submitted that in case DMRC was not agreeable to revenue sharing on expiry of the five years' period, then MCD would claim its share in the revenue arising to DMRC from advertisements on its land from the very beginning and even without waiting for the five years' period. Mr Prasad further submitted that in case any advertisement put up on DMRC land violated the specifications set out in the Advertisement Policy or it offended morality or was bad for any other reason, it would be always open to MCD to have such advertisements removed. 6. Since DMRC accepts the technical parameters and specifications set out in the Advertisement Policy of EPCA without any qualifications, this Court need not pass any further order in this connection. The acceptance of the technical parameters and specifications of the Advertisement Policy by DMRC is taken note of. 7. In case MCD or NDMC raises any demand against DMRC for revenue sharing or gives it any notice for removal of any advertisement(s) put up on the DMRC land on grounds that no prior permission was accorded by the municipal bodies or it was not in conformity with the Policy specifications or for any other reason, it will always be open to DMRC to seek its remedies before an appropriate forum and in accordance with law. 8. On 25-4-2008, this Court had directed that DMRC would not enter into any new contracts and would not renew old contracts or erect fresh hoardings. 8. On 25-4-2008, this Court had directed that DMRC would not enter into any new contracts and would not renew old contracts or erect fresh hoardings. The restraint order is lifted and DMRC is now free to erect fresh hoardings or to enter into new contracts in that regard subject to the provisions of the Advertisement Policy, accepted by it, and approved by this Court. MCD/NDMC would also be at liberty to take any action in case the advertisements put up on the DMRC lands are not in conformity with the technical parameters of the Policy or it violates any other provisions. IAs Nos. 299-301 9. Adjourned. IA No. 316 10. Application for impleadment is allowed. 11. This Court had passed some orders on 16-12-1997, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 676 and 20-12-2002, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2009) 17 SCC 62 regarding TSRs. The main grievance of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants is against para 1(9) of the order of 16-12-19971, which reads as follows: "1. (9) One of the major pollutants identified in the various affidavits as well as in the latest status report filed by the Government is the TSR (two-seater rickshaw using a two-stroke engine). We are further informed that although the existing figure of registered TSRs, as per the records, is approximately 83,000; the actual number in use is far lesser since some of these permits have not been cancelled although the vehicles have been scrapped. It would be in the interest of the environment, to freeze the number of TSRs for the present at the level at which they are actually in use in the city. We, therefore, direct that there would be no grant of fresh permits in respect of the TSR, save and except by way of replacement of an existing working TSR with a new one." The learned Senior Counsel states that in view of the increase in population and increase in the number of vehicles during the past several years, this matter needs to be examined afresh by EPCA. We request EPCA to give a report as regards the needfulness for fresh permissions for three-wheelers (TSRs). The report should be submitted within a period of three months. The applicants representing the Three-Wheelers Association would be at liberty to represent before EPCA. 12. List immediately on receipt of the report from EPCA. 13. We request EPCA to give a report as regards the needfulness for fresh permissions for three-wheelers (TSRs). The report should be submitted within a period of three months. The applicants representing the Three-Wheelers Association would be at liberty to represent before EPCA. 12. List immediately on receipt of the report from EPCA. 13. Rest of the IAs are adjourned to 30-10-2009.