ADVIEW Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORDER Heard the arguments of Mr.B.S.Gnanadesikan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.B.S.G.Firm for petitioners, Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned cousnel for Corporation of Chennai.

(2.) IN W.P.No.29239 of 2010, the petitioner is the advertising agency. They sought for a direction to the second respondent Corporation of Chennai not to interfere with the advertisements through digital flex pasted in the walls of the Railway buildings or wall writing/painting in the walls of the Railway buildings in the city of Chennai belonging to the petitioner firm. IN that writ petition, after ordering notice, status quo was granted for a limited period and the same was extended from time to time.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel had stated that the petitioners have been carrying on lawful business. In case of railways, they were permitted by railways to use their walls. However, suddenly the officials of the Corporation had started preventing the petitioners from advertising in the walls. THE news along with photographs were widely published in the newspapers. In one such photograph, Mayor of the Chennai was found along with other persons when the advertisement was removed. It is stated by the petitioners that the action of the respondents was contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurment) Act, 1959. THE Corporation has no power under the said Act to prevent the wall wiring in any place. Under the said enactment, it is the police who can prosecute before the competent court. THE action of the petitioners are protected by freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Even if the corporation for some reason wants to prohibit them, they can do so only after getting an opinion of the Transport Committee. In the 1959 Act, there is no provision for getting permission for the pasting of digital flex board in private places. THErefore, the action of the respondents should be interfered with.