GAFFAR BEIG Vs. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KRISHNARAJAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER here in applied to the 1st respondent to permit him to erect display board on the side of the public roads. He chose the following points in this behalf, namely,

(2.) THE contesting 2nd respondent appeared and has filed a statement of objection. Their contention is that the roads described in annexure-r1 have been put under their control by the state and that the 1st respondent cannot exercise any right over the same, that the 1st respondent cannot licence any person to place any hoarding on the side of the said road without the permission of the 2nd respondent, the alleged permission granted by the assistant engineer is not binding on them as he had no authority to grant the permission, that the right to erect hoarding can be farmed out only after due publicity, that there was no oblique motive in the action of the 3rd respondent in instructing the petitioner to remove the hoarding as alleged, that by virtue of the governmental grant the right to manage and control the road referred to in the government grant belongs to them and that the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition.

(3.) THE disputed roads are the following:<FRM>JUDGEMENT_176_KANTLJ3_2001Html1.htm</FRM> the 2nd respondent is claiming a right analogous to that of the owner by virtue of annexure-r1. The basic order of the government had not been produced by the 2nd respondent. But on direction by this court, Shri hinchigeri, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has produced the same. It being the basic document i would extract the same for easy reference. The document reads thus:<IMG>vir3.jpg</IMG> from the above it is difficult to discern an absolute grant by the owner, a right which would clothe the power to regulate the user of the road and the road margins. I do not think that the government would have farmed out any such right to the 2nd respondent as well.