JAI ADVERTISEMENTS REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR P CHELLAPANDI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MADURAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MADURAI, TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.S.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the second respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is an advertisement agency and in this writ petition, they have challenged the proceedings of the third respondent, the District Collector, Madurai District. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier and filed W.P.(MD) No.604 of 2018, praying for a direction to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 herein from any way interfering or removing the hoardings and display boards installed in the signal (traffic signal) as found in the No Objection Certificate (hereinafter mentioned as NOC) granted by the respondent vide proceedings dated 04.07.2013 and NOC issued by the second respondent dated 11.10.2013. The respondents resisted the prayer sought for in the writ petition by contending that the petitioner had obtained NOC only from the first respondent, but had not obtained license as per Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules 2003. Further, it was stated that the petitioner is required to get plan approved by the qualified Engineer and no objection from the Engineer or State or the Municipality concerned and certificate from the police officer and mere granting of NOC is not enough. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has not adhered to the condition imposed in NOC by which 1/3rd space has to be given for advertising road traffic rules. The petitioner contended that they have already applied to the District Collector for securing a license.

(3.) The Court noting that the petitioner has been in the business since 2013 well within the knowledge of the respondents, had he committed any violation, it was always open to the authorities to point out the violation or non compliance of the conditions and directed the petitioner to comply with the same. But, without doing so, the respondents, all of a sudden, cannot stop or prohibit the petitioner from doing business, which he was carrying on for four years. Further, the Court pointed out that if the petitioner had not complied with Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules 2003, the respondents should not have allowed the petitioner to start the business by removing advertisement board, which were erected in the year 2013 and they have been in deep slumber for four years, all of a sudden, cannot now target the petitioner and prohibit him from carrying on his business. After making such observation, the Court proceeded to direct the petitioner to file an application before the District Collector, Madurai, the third respondent herein and the following directions were issued to the petitioner as well as the third respondent: