Gurugram RWAs Face Scrutiny Over Advertising Practices

A dispute has emerged between the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram (MCG) and various Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) regarding the legality of advertising revenue collection within residential areas. MCG Commissioner Pradeep Dahiya raised objections during a WhatsApp group discussion on September 7, 2023, stating that RWAs were improperly soliciting funds from businesses, including doctors, in exchange for advertisement placements.

Dahiya’s intervention highlighted a significant issue: the collection of advertising revenue by RWAs violates municipal regulations. He emphasized the need for RWAs to adhere to legal protocols when attempting to fundraise. This prompted a contentious debate among group members, with some defending the actions of the RWAs while others sided with the commissioner. Tensions escalated after Dahiya and several MCG officials exited the group, along with a resident who supported the commissioner’s stance.

In his remarks, Dahiya clarified that while RWAs could make contributions to their communities, they should not bypass established legal procedures. “It would have been far better if RWAs had sought prior permission instead of undertaking such practices informally,” he stated. He added that advertising fees could be paid to regularize the notices issued.

Following inspections, MCG officials confirmed that showcause notices were issued to multiple RWAs and doctors for unauthorized hoardings. One specific notice, issued on September 7, 2023, in Sector 27, cited violations of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, the Haryana Municipal Advertisement Byelaws, 2022, and the Haryana Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1989. The notice warned that penalties, removal of hoardings, and potential criminal proceedings could follow if the recipients did not respond within three days.

The conflict has prompted varied responses from RWAs. Many representatives defended their advertising practices, arguing that they were necessary to address deficiencies in civic services. One representative noted that they often had to manage repairs for sewer covers, potholes, and electrical cables themselves due to delays in municipal tenders, which they deemed unsafe.

Some residents expressed support for the commissioner’s position. Harish Nair, president of the Sector 23 RWA, suggested exploring higher maintenance charges or emergency funds instead of relying on unauthorized advertisements. Meanwhile, Kundan Lal Sharma from Sector 21 acknowledged the legal validity of Dahiya’s objections but pointed out that frustrations over civic lapses were evident in the hundreds of messages exchanged in the group.

This situation has reignited discussions surrounding the need for a clear advertising policy for RWAs. Puneet Pahwa of Sector 45 RWA remarked, “Advertising already generates revenue for MCG. Extending a transparent framework for RWAs could avoid conflict.”

In contrast, Chaitali Mandhotra from Ardee City emphasized the urgency of addressing civic issues, stating, “We don’t have roads. The sewer is overflowing… but the MCG took revenue collection by RWA as a priority. I am surprised.”

As the debate unfolds, the MCG’s actions and the responses from RWAs will likely shape the future of advertising practices in residential areas of Gurugram. The situation remains a critical point of contention as both parties seek to balance community needs with legal compliance.