& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Court order gives billboards a new lease of life

SABRINA KARIM MURSHED
Authorities' move to clear billboards off the cityscape ran into legal roadblocks, as the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on January 12 extended for six months an injunction on the demolition drive launched to cut vision pollution.
The order prevented Dhaka City Corporation DCC demolishing advertisement boards of 19 members of the Outdoor Advertising Owners Association (OAOA) that filed a petition with the Appellate Division to stay a High Court (HC) order on the raise in advertising rates by the DCC last May.
In the petition against the HC order that went against the advertisers, the association also sought an injunction from the Appellate Division, directing the DCC not to demolish the billboards.
The Appellate Division granted the petition, making the demolition drive
seemingly uncertain.
City dwellers feel billboards or neon signs, put up indiscriminately at vital crossroads, add to vision pollution. "Commercial or residential, billboards fill every nook and cranny, distorting the beauty of the city," said Dhaka University student Syed Ashraf.
Huge advertising boards are a risk for drivers too, as they divert attention and blur road vision. "Billboards should have been installed in designated places and in fewer numbers to minimise the strain to the eye," said Bipasha Haque, a schoolteacher, in a city where the DCC allowed at least 6,949 billboards until 2002, far outnumbered by unauthorised ones.
The DCC began dismantling the billboards on July 19, 2003, as it decided not to renew contracts with advertisers, which expired on June 30 -- a move that came to a halt on a stay order the Appellate Division issued on November 17.
The hearing scheduled for January 14 was deferred because of the new stay order issued on January 12.
Asked why the boards of other firms were not removed, as only 19 firms filed petitions with the court, a DCC official said petitioners staked a claim to the ownership of every billboard.
By contrast, OAOA Secretary Mohammed Rashed accused the DCC of removing the billboards defying the court order.
"We took DCC employees to Ramna Police Station and they could not show a valid proof of their permission to demolish the boards. Still, police refused to file any case," he said.
WRIT AGAINST INCREASED RATES
The advertising firms filed a writ with the HC against the DCC for raising advertisement rates that seemed to them quite unreasonable.
"The DCC increased the flat rent of Tk
30 to Tk 150 a square foot," Rashed said, adding that most advertising agencies had earlier rented a 10ft by 30ft board at up to Tk 22,000 a year.
"We have to charge our clients more than Tk 1 lakh, as the DCC will take Tk 45,000 for such a board if new rates are implemented," he said.
Later, the DCC changed its mind and decided not to renew contracts with the advertisers, as outdoor advertisement yielded much less revenue than expected in the fiscal 2002-03.
"We are willing to come to an out-ofcourt settlement, if the DCC requests so," Rashed said.
He said neither the DCC nor the advertising firms benefit from the legal tangles and more illegal billboards sprouted as the matter was pending with court.
DCC's Deputy Chief Revenue Officer Mohammad Helaluddin declined to comment on the issue.