High Court of Madhya Pradesh: The Court while hearing a public interest litigation filed by the petitioner as objections against certain provision stated in the draft of “Madhya Pradesh Outdoor Advertisement Media Rules, 2016” for regulating the installation of hoardings/advertisements erected on the road sides, the Bench comprising of SK Gangele and Anurag Shrivastava, JJ., observed that since the State invited objections while framing the rules mentioned above and now the said rules are in final stage of publication hence a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the State Government and the petitioners have no locus standi to make objections at this juncture.
The petitioners have submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to consider the objections filed against draft rules as the illegal hoardings/advertisements erected on the road sides without any permission from the Municipal Corporation are causing threat to the life of commuters as eye-catching advertisements put on the hoardings attract attention of drivers of the vehicles.
The Court perusing the contentions of parties held that it is well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot issue a writ of Mandamus against the State to frame particular sets of rules and since the Court had already issued interim directions to the State to consider the rules made by other State Governments or Corporations for finalising its draft rules hence, it is the duty of the State Government to frame the above-mentioned draft rules as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving the copy of the order in order to regulate the safe traffic movement in the State. [Satish Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 SCC OnLine MP 333, decided on 28th February 2017]