K KANAGARAJ Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. Nos. 7143 of 2006 and 24154 of 2003 are filed in public interest, seeking inter alia, the issuance of appropriate writs, orders or directions to the respondents for the purpose of securing the removal of hoardings which continue to be erected and displayed unlawfully upon the public places and public lands in the city of Chennai. The grievance of the petitioners is that thousands of hoardings are erected on public lands, on the roadsides, on the pavements and platforms, and these hoardings are not only hazardous to traffic but also to public, since the pedestrians are compelled to walk on the roads facing risk to their lives. The State Exchequer is also losing revenue, since the owners of those hoardings are not paying any ground rent or advertisement tax. As a result, the Government is losing its revenue to the tune of Rs. 40 to 50 crores every year. It is also highlighted that almost all political parties in and around the city of Chennai are erecting innumerable hoardings all around the city. There are number of specifications for the erection of such hoardings within the limits of the Corporation, but none of the political parties seem to follow the rules and regulations and the Corporation of Chennai is also not taking any measure either to regulate such hoardings or to collect the fees. It is contended that there was a complete failure on the part of the law enforcing agencies, statutorily vested with regulatory powers to discharge their duties in accordance with law.

(2.) W.P. No. 19056of 2003 and other companion petitions in the batch are preferred by the hoarding owners, or as the case may be, by persons claiming to be entitled to assert a right to erect hoardings in public as well as private places questioning the validity of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 2003 (hereinafter be referred to as "the rules" for short). Broadly speaking, the contention of the petitioners is that the rules are arbitrary and impose unreasonable restrictions and thus, violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(l)(a) and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution.

(3.) IN Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State 2001 (2) CTC 103, all the writ petitions filed by the hoarding owners came to be dismissed. The Division Bench rejected the contentions of the hoarding owners holding: