<p>A day after a single-judge bench of the High Court of Karnataka quashed BBMP's resolution banning all forms of advertisements in open spaces for one year, a division bench on Thursday stayed the order. </p>.<p>A division bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice L Narayana Swamy, was hearing an appeal filed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) challenging the interim order passed on Wednesday.</p>.<p>The single bench had passed the order in response to a petition filed by the advertising companies. The petitioners sought quashing of Palike's August 6, 2018, decision that banned advertisements for a year.</p>.<p>On Thursday, Nanjunda Reddy, senior counsel appearing for the BBMP, submitted that when the main matter was pending, quashing the resolution would amount to allowing the writ petition.</p>.<p>It also submitted that when an interim order is made, it should always be ancillary to the main matter. Quashing the resolution impugned in the writ petition amounts to the disposal of the main matter.</p>.<p>The court stated in its order that prayers made in the writ petition are for quashing the resolution and also for a declaration that the schedule advertisement/hoardings are deemed to have been granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.</p>.<p>Thus the court is of the view that the impugned order amounts to the disposal of the main matter itself. It is trite that an interim order should always be ancillary to the main relief.</p>.<p>Therefore in such circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be stayed and it is accordingly stayed, it said.</p>
<p>A day after a single-judge bench of the High Court of Karnataka quashed BBMP's resolution banning all forms of advertisements in open spaces for one year, a division bench on Thursday stayed the order. </p>.<p>A division bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice L Narayana Swamy, was hearing an appeal filed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) challenging the interim order passed on Wednesday.</p>.<p>The single bench had passed the order in response to a petition filed by the advertising companies. The petitioners sought quashing of Palike's August 6, 2018, decision that banned advertisements for a year.</p>.<p>On Thursday, Nanjunda Reddy, senior counsel appearing for the BBMP, submitted that when the main matter was pending, quashing the resolution would amount to allowing the writ petition.</p>.<p>It also submitted that when an interim order is made, it should always be ancillary to the main matter. Quashing the resolution impugned in the writ petition amounts to the disposal of the main matter.</p>.<p>The court stated in its order that prayers made in the writ petition are for quashing the resolution and also for a declaration that the schedule advertisement/hoardings are deemed to have been granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.</p>.<p>Thus the court is of the view that the impugned order amounts to the disposal of the main matter itself. It is trite that an interim order should always be ancillary to the main relief.</p>.<p>Therefore in such circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be stayed and it is accordingly stayed, it said.</p>
