Petition Nos.4649 to 4663 of 2011 andM.P.No.1 of 2011 in all W.Ps.Mr.A.Kanakaraj v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate:7.3.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition Nos.4649 to 4663 of 2011 andM.P.No.1 of 2011 in all W.Ps.Mr.A.Kanakaraj, Proprietor ofM/s.Noel Arts and Advertising, No.31/22, Victoria Crescent Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ... Petitioner in all W.Ps. vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai-600 003. ... Respondent in all W.Ps. Writ Petition No.4649 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the records of the respondent culminating in its order dated 30.8.2010 passed in B.R.R.C.No.B1/2476/2010 in respect of gantries at; (a) Luz Junction X Mylapore (towards Royapettah High Road) in WP.4649/11(b)T.Nagar X South Usman Road(towards T.Nagar); in WP.4650/11(c) Besant Nagar x Indira Nagar Junction(at Indira Nagar) inWP.4651/11(d)Ethiraj Salai X RL Road X Egmore Junction in WP.4652/11 (e) Luz Junction X Mylapore(towards TTK Road) in WP.4653/11(f)Luz Junction X Mylapore(towards RK Mutt Road) in WP.4654/11 (g)Raj Bhavan X Guindy (towards Guindy)in WP.4655/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (h) Besant Nagar X Indira Nagar Junction (M.G.Road towards BesantNagar)in WP.4656/11(i) Luz Junction X Mylapore(towards Santhome High Road); inWP.4657/11(j)Taj Coromandel X N.H.Road Junction; in WP.4658/11(k)T.Nagar X Burkit Road(toward Nandanam); in WP.4659/11(l) Besant Nagar X Indira Nagar Junction (DR.Muthulakshmi Salaitowards Adyar)in WP.4660/11(m) Besant Nagar X Indira Nagar Junction (at L.B.Road towardsThiruvanmiyur)in WP.4661/11(n) Haddows Road X Sastri Bhavan Junction ; in WP.4662/11 (o)Chinthamani X Anna Nagar Junction (towards Pulla Avenue) inWP.4663/11 respectively. quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue NOCto maintain the Gantries.

For Petitioner in all W.Ps. : Mr.T.A.Srinivasen For Respondents in all W.Ps.:Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General, for Mr.V.Bharathidsan. -----COMMON ORDERWrit Petition No.4649 of 2011 is filed praying to issue aWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent culminating in its order dated 30.8.2010 passed inB.R.R.C.No.B1/2476/2010 in respect of gantries at Luz Junction XMylapore (towards Royapettah High Road), quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue NOC to maintain the Gantries.2. Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondent corporation in all the writ petitions. The relief sought for in all the 15 writ petitions, is one and the same. Hence, by consent of both parties, all the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The petitioner is engaged in the business of TrafficAdvertising for the past 20 years. He has the authorization of Police Department, Highways Department and the Corporation of Chennai and therefore, the denial of "No Objection Certificate" is bad and the impugned orders have to be set aside.

The petitioner claims to be in possession of licence to maintain gantries structure on payment of certain charges together with display of advertisements/hordings. In the year 2009-2010,the petitioner made application for grant of "No ObjectionCertificate", which was rejected by the Commissioner of Corporationof Chennai, who relied upon the provisions of the City MunicipalCorporation Act and the Rules relating to grant of licence forhoadings and levy and collection of advertisement taxes.

The Commissioner of Corporation also relied upon the relevant provisions to state that "No Objection Certificate cannot be granted for maintenance of gantries and the licence should be granted by the District Collector. The respondent relied upon Section 326B of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act 1919.

The plea of the petitioner is based on the permission given by the Superintending Engineer, Bus Route Roads Department, Corporation of Chennai and similar authorities who are not competent to grant the "No Objection Certificate" in terms of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. For whatever reason, the petitioner has been continuing to maintain the gantries withhoardings. At the time of seeking for fresh "No ObjectionCertificate", the respondent corporation appears to have woke up from slumber and relying upon the provisions of law as set out in the impugned order rejected the application for grant of "NoObjection Certificate". Petitioner only relies upon the previous permission granted by the Superintending Engineer, Bus Route RoadsDepartment, Corporation of Chennai and the petitioner is not able to state as to how such power is delegated to the respondent.

The impugned order also states that the location of the gantries is not in accordance with the specification and the Rules. Furthermore, the licence to maintain the hoardings as pointed out earlier should be given by the District Collector and the petitioner has not shown any record for the same. However, in order to put a quietus to the issue, the learned Advocate Generalappearing on behalf of the respondent corporation now stated across the Bar on instruction from the respondent corporation that they are not contemplating to grant "No Objection Certificate" to any individual, much less the petitioner for the purpose of erecting or maintaining gantries with road signages. According to the learnedAdvocate General, the entire road signages and gantries will be maintained by the respondent corporation by erecting the same in accordance with rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

In view of the statement of the learned Advocate Generalas above, the merits of the petitioner's claim does not deserve tobe considered any further, as admittedly his period is over long ago. Only because of the inaction on the part of the respondent department, petitioner is continuing to maintain the gantries withhoardings. At this point of time petitioner has no right to maintain the gantries or the hoardings. In this admitted factual scenario, the rejection of the "No Objection Certificate" does not deserve to be reconsidered, particularly, in view of the policy decision taken by the respondent corporation not to allow any individual to maintain signages and gantries in the road margins and street junctions.

Recording the said statement of the learned AdvocateGeneral and the stand taken by the respondent corporation to erect and maintain the gantries and road signages, the writ petitions challenging the orders of the respondent corporation denying "NoObjection Certificate" fail and become redundant and infructuous. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are closed giving liberty to the respondent corporation to proceed further in the matters in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ra/tsSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarToThe Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai-600 003.+ 2 ccs to M/s. Sree and Associates, Advocate SR No.16440+ 1 cc to Mr. V. Bharathidasan, Advocate SR No.16498RJ(CO)SR/23.3.2011 Common Order inW.P.Nos.4649 to 4663 of 2011