<p class="rtejustify">The High Court of Karnataka directed the BBMP not to take any action in a haste with regard to the removal of advertisement structures.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">The court was hearing a petition challenging the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike's notice banning installation of advertisement hoardings for a year.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">A group of advertising agencies have moved the court seeking quashing of the notification issued on August 6.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">The court directed the Judicial Registrar to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">The petitioners claimed that they were paying taxes and also had the BBMP’s permission to put up hoardings and the holding iron structures.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">According to them, the ban was against statutory provisions and would take away their livelihood.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">They submitted that the respondents were contemplating the forcible removal of the advertisement hoardings, including iron-like lining structures and iron structures put up for the display of advertisement hoardings, which was also in compliance with the advertisement bylaws.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">They contended that if the structures were removed, they would be put into great inconvenience.</p>
<p class="rtejustify">The High Court of Karnataka directed the BBMP not to take any action in a haste with regard to the removal of advertisement structures.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">The court was hearing a petition challenging the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike's notice banning installation of advertisement hoardings for a year.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">A group of advertising agencies have moved the court seeking quashing of the notification issued on August 6.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">The court directed the Judicial Registrar to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">The petitioners claimed that they were paying taxes and also had the BBMP’s permission to put up hoardings and the holding iron structures.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">According to them, the ban was against statutory provisions and would take away their livelihood.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">They submitted that the respondents were contemplating the forcible removal of the advertisement hoardings, including iron-like lining structures and iron structures put up for the display of advertisement hoardings, which was also in compliance with the advertisement bylaws.</p>.<p class="rtejustify">They contended that if the structures were removed, they would be put into great inconvenience.</p>