SC modifies Madras HC order on hoardings

http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2001/06/08/stories/140819aw.htm THE Supreme Court has affirmed a judgment of the Madras High Court holding that Section 326 (J) of the City Municipal Corporation Act of Tamil Nadu as amended was neither ultra vires Article 14 nor Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, in view of the int erpretation given by the High Court. The ruling was given by a Division Bench comprising Mr Justice V.N. Khare and Mr Justice N. Santosh Hegde, while disposing of a batch of appeals and a writ petition in the case of P. Narayana Bhat vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others. ``We are, however, inclined to take somewhat a different view in regard to certain observations made by the High Court as to the requirement of Section 326(J) dealing with advertisement by hoardings as also with regard to the right of the appellants to h ave sufficient time to apply for grant of licence and renewals under the provisions of the impugned amendments,'' the judges observed. Before the High Court, the appellants challenged the vires of Section 326(J) of the Act, inter alia, on the following ground: W Advertisement by hoardings was a fundamental right of the appellants under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. W Power given to the Municipal Commissioner under the impugned Act to remove any hoarding which he felt was hazardous was arbitrary, unreasonable, hence was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. W The limitation imposed under the Act of applying for licences could not be enforced in the absence of any rules and forms providing for application for existing hoarding owners. The Supreme Court in the judgment noted that though the High Court rightly held that the principles of natural justice were fundamental in administrative law and these principles even if not found on the face of the statues, could be deduced from the obj ect of the Act and the Rules, the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the authorities were bound to remove all hoardings simply because they were visible to traffic and the authorities had no option but to remove such hoardings. By this finding, the court said, the High Court came to the conclusion that mere visibility of the hoardings to the traffic was sufficient ground to either removing them or would be a sufficient ground to refuse to grant licences and their renewal. ``The conclusion, in our opinion, is contrary to the very wordings of the provision,'' the judges added. The judges said that a plain reading of the section showed the authorities concerned were empowered either to refuse to grant licence and its renewal or to remove the existing hoardings only if they were hazardous and a source of disturbance to safe traf fic movement, which, in turn, should adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic, unless these impediments were present in the hoardings merely because the hoardings were visible to the traffic, could not be a ground for either refusing the grant or r enewal of licence. Modifying the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court directed that such persons intending to apply for grant of licence or renewal should be permitted to do so within 30 days and, in such an event, their applications would be considered by the author ities concerned in accordance with Section 326(J) of the Act ``as interpreted by us within a reasonable time and till such time as their applications are considered and disposed of, the existing hoardings should not be removed''.

"Loved reading this piece by ravidevaraj?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group