M/s.Sri Ragavendra Ad Lab v. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Commercial Manager's Office

For Petitioner:Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel forMr.S.Rajendrakumar For Respondent-1 :Mr.R.ThiyagarajanSenior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar For Respondent-2: Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian Additional Advocate GeneralAssisted by Mr.G.Anantharangan W.P.NO.7322 / 2012M/s.Prakash Arts Rep. by its Branch Manager M.YoganReal Towers No.2, 2nd Floor, No.51/51, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 004.... Petitioner Versus1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Chennai Division Chennai – 600 003.2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.3.M/s.IT Expressway Limited Rep. by its Managing Director Sindur Pantheon Plaza, 2nd Floor, No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. (R3 – impleaded as per order dated 17.08.2012 in M.P.No.2/2012 in W.P.No.7322 / 2012)4.The District Collector Chennai District Chennai. (R4 – impleaded as per order dated 28.09.2012 in M.P.No.5/2012 in W.P.No.7322 / 2012) ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directingthe 2nd respondent not to interfere with the display boards erectedby the petitioner in the property owned and licenced by the 1strespondent the details of which are given in the schedule to thepetition. For Petitioner:Mr.T.R.RajagopalanSenior Counsel for M/s.B.S.G. Firm For Respondent-1 :Mr.R.ThiyagarajanSenior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar For Respondent-2: Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian Additional Advocate GeneralAssisted by Mr.G.Anantharangan For Respondent-3:* Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian Additional Advocate General for Mr.V.Ramajagadeesan W.P.NO.13849 / 2012M/s.BassRep. by its Proptrx B. MangayarkarasiNo.8/109, Kavimani Road, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037.... Petitioner Versus1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Commercial Manager's Office Chennai – 600 003.2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearingthe 2nd respondent, its officers, subordinates or any one actingunder or through him from in anyway interfering with thepetitioner's right to carry on its business by keeping the displayboards / Vinyl stickers in the places allotted by the 1st respondent(i) Thiruvanmiyur Station facing West Avenue Road, (ii) Near IndraNagar Station Building facing KTBR Railway Station (iii) Between https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ KTBR & INDR Stations facing KTBR between pillar Nos.486-487 undervalid licence issued by the 1st respondent. For Petitioner:Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel forMr.S.Rajendrakumar For Respondent-1 :Mr.R.ThiyagarajanSenior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar For Respondent-2: Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian Additional Advocate GeneralAssisted by * Mrs.Karthikaa AshokW.P.NO.13850 / 2012M/s.Ad ViewRep. by its Partner A.P.Baskaran 70AB, Kodambakkam Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.... Petitioner Versus1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Commercial Manager's Office Chennai – 600 003.2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearingthe 2nd respondent, its officers, subordinates or any one actingunder or through him from in anyway interfering with thepetitioner's right to carry on its business by keeping the displayboards / Vinyl pasting / Wall painting in the places allotted bythe 1st respondent (i) On the Wall at Madras Fort Station facing MPKand (ii) in the abandoned booking office at the Madras Fort Stationfacing Dental College (iii) Wall painting on the outside curveshape of Aluminium composite panel one side facing Madhya Kailashand the other side facing Adyar Bus Stop at KTBR Railway Station(iv) Wall Painting below the curve shape of the Aluminium Compositepanel one side facing Madhya Kailash and other side facing AdyarBus Terminus on the space between pillars in the places allotted by1st respondent under valid licence issued by the 1st respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner:Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel forMr.S.Rajendrakumar For Respondent-1 :Mr.R.ThiyagarajanSenior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar For Respondent-2: Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian Additional Advocate GeneralAssisted by * Mrs.Karthikaa AshokW.P.NO.27202 / 2012M/s.BassRep. by its Proptrx B. MangayarkarasiNo.8/109, Kavimani Road, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037.... Petitioner Versus1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Commercial Manager's Office Chennai – 600 003.2.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd., Sindur Pantheon Plaza, Second Floor, No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearingthe 2nd respondent, its officers, subordinates or any one actingunder or through him from in anyway interfering with thepetitioner's right to carry on its business by keeping the displayboards / Vinyl stickers in the places allotted by the 1st respondent(i) Glow sign boards between Thiruvanmiyur – Tharamani betweenpillars 602-603 facing SRP Tools, (ii) Near Thiruvanmiyur PillarNo.569 facing Tidel Park, (iii) Near Thiruvanmiyur facing SRP ToolsNear Pillar No.570, (iv) Near Pillar No.569, facing KasturibaiStation side (v) Near pillar No.467 facing Guindy side and (vi)Vinyl sticker near Thiruvanmiyur near Pillar No.569 facing TidelPark under valid licence issued by the 1st respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner:Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel forMr.S.Rajendrakumar For Respondent-1 :Mr.R.ThiyagarajanSenior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar For Respondent-2:* Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian Additional Advocate General for Mr.V.Ramajagadeesan COMMON ORDERThe petitioners in these batch of writ petitions hadgranted permission by the Southern Railway authorities to erecthoardings for display of advertisement in the Railway premises, onpayment of licence fee. The Corporation of Chennai has sought toregulate those hoardings by insisting that the petitioners shallobtain licence, otherwise those hoardings could be removed by them.In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed these writpetitions seeking to forbear the respondent Corporation of Chennaifrom interfering with the hoardings put up by them in the Railwaypremises. 2.The issue that arises for consideration in all thesewrit petitions is as to whether the Corporation of Chennai canregulate the hoardings that are put up in the Railway premises, bythe private parties, who are the petitioners herein. 3.Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor M/s.B.S.G.Firm, learned counsel for the petitioner inW.P.No.7322 of 2012 has submitted that since the hoardings areerected in the Railway premises, the petitioners cannot be asked totake licence in view of Section 185 of the Railways Act, 1989. Healso relied on Article 285 of the Constitution of India in thisregard. He has relied on the following judgments in support of hissubmission:(i) Judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OFINDIA VS. PURNA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS [1992(1) SCC 100] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)Judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OFINDIA AND ANOTHER VS. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONRANCHI AND OTHERS [1996 (7) SCC 542](iii)Judgment of the Supreme Court in MUNICIPALCORPORATION, AMRITSAR VS. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OFPOST OFFICES, AMRITSAR DIVISION AND ANOTHER [2004(3) SCC 92](iv)Judgment of this Court in UNION OF INDIA VS.THE COMMISSIONER (W.P.NO.13990 OF 2012 – DECIDEDON 30.07.2010](v)Judgment of this Court in PRINCIPALACCOUNTANT GENERAL VS. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATIONOF CHENNAI [2010 (5) MLJ 241]4.Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel hasvehemently contended that neither Corporation of Chennai nor M/s.ITExpressway Limited, a company owned by the Government of TamilNadu, has got power to regulate the hoardings put up by thepetitioners in the Railway premises. 5.Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel has soughtto distinguish the Division Bench judgment of this Court in THETAMIL NADU OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU [2001 (2) CTC 103] upholding Acts 51 of 1998 and 26 of 2000incorporating Chapter XII-A to the Chennai City MunicipalCorporation Act, 1919 containing Sections 326-A to 326-J and alsothe decision of the Supreme Court in P.NARAYANA BHAT VS. STATE OFTAMIL NADU [2001 (4) SCC 554] confirming the judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court by contending that in those cases thehoardings on the Railway premises was not under consideration. 6.Likewise, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counselhas submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Courtin K.KANAGARAJ VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHENNAI AND OTHERS [2006 (4)MLJ 1033] upholding the Chennai City Municipal CorporationLicensing of hoarding and Levy and Collection of Advertisement TaxRules 2003 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in NOVVA ADS VS.SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLYAND ANOTHER [2008 (8) SCC 42] confirming the judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court, do not consider the hoardings erectedin the premises of the Railway. Hence, the Corporation of Chennailacks power to regulate the hoardings erected by the petitionersin the Railway premises. 7.Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ behalf of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3165, 13849, 13850 and 27202of 2012 adopted the submissions made by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitionerin W.P.No.7322 of 2012.8.On the other hand, Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned SeniorCounsel appearing for respondent Railway has submitted that insofaras the display of advertisement in the hoardings erected on Railwayproperties is concerned, the licencee, if required, should alsohave to take appropriate permission from the statutory authorities,as required by law for such display. That is, the Railwayauthorities have not supported the claim of the petitioners as suchand it is their submission that the statutory provisions willgovern the situation. 9.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing forthe Corporation of Chennai has submitted that the petitioners havefailed to get prior permission from the competent authority forputting up advertisement on the hoardings as per Chapter XII-A ofthe Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and he relied moreparticularly on Sections 326-A, 326-B, 326-C and 326-J of the saidAct. In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General reliedon a common order passed by this Court in M/S.ADVIEW AND OTHERS VS.GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [W.P.Nos.29239 of 2010 etc., batch decidedon 28.06.2011] and the judgment of the Supreme Court in LINKSADVERTISERS AND BUSINESS PROMOTERS VS. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OFCITY OF BANGALORE [1977 AIR 1646]. 10.The learned Additional Advocate General also submittedthat the constitutional validity of Chapter XII-A of the ChennaiCity Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 that was incorporated by wayof Act 58 of 1991 and Act 26 of 2000 was upheld by a Division Benchof this Court in THE TAMIL NADU OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS.GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (2) CTC 103] and the same wasconfirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in P.NARAYANA BHATVS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (4) SCC 554]. It was submitted thatthe very purpose of introducing Chapter XII-A was in the interestof public and thus, the hoardings could be regulated by theCorporation of Chennai, as per the provisions of Chapter XII-A ofthe Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. He producedvarious photographs and submitted that the hoardings and theadvertisements thereon are just adjacent to the busy OMR Road (OldMahabalipuram Road). 11.The learned Additional Advocate General vehementlycontended that the permission given by the Railway authorities tothe petitioners to erect hoardings in their premises is notsufficient to erect the hoardings and put up advertisement thereon https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ without getting licence from the Corporation of Chennai as providedunder Chapter XII-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act,1919. Since the petitioners did not obtain licence before erectingthe hoardings, those hoardings are unauthorised and illegal and areliable to be removed. 12.Mr.V.Ramajegadeesan, learned counsel appearing forM/s.IT Expressway Limited submitted that Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OldMahabalipuram Road) is being maintained by M/s.IT ExpresswayLimited, by way of a partnership and development agreement dated23.02.2005 entered into between the Government of Tamil Nadu andthe IT Expressway Limited. As per Article 2(1)(d) of the saidagreement, the said company has been authorised to collect licencefee from the advertiser. The petitioners have erected hoardingsalongside Rajiv Gandhi Salai contrary to the provisions containedin Section 326-J of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act,1919 and Rule-6 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation HoardingsRules, 2003 and without obtaining any valid licence from theCorporation of Chennai. He made similar submissions as made by thelearned Additional Advocate General. 13.I have considered the submissions made on either side.14.The issue that arises for consideration in all thesewrit petitions is as to whether the petitioners can erecthoardings, without getting licence from the Corporation of Chennai,for displaying advertisements on the hoardings, as provided underChapter XII-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. 15.An ordinance to amend the laws relating to theMunicipal Corporations and Municipalities in the State of TamilNadu to regulate erection of hoardings was promulgated by TamilNadu Ordinance 2 of 1998. The said Ordinance was promulgated with aview to regulate the erection of hoardings on the road side andover the buildings of the City of Chennai and in other urban areasof the State, without proper licence. The said Ordinance wassubsequently enacted as Act 51 of 1998. The same inserted Sections326-A to 326-I of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919and also in other Acts governing the other Corporations and also inTamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Later, furtheramendment was introduced by Act 26 of 2000 incorporating Section326-J of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. 16.Section 326-A of the Chennai City MunicipalCorporation Act, 1919 defines the word "hoarding" and the same isextracted hereunder:"326-A. Definition. – In this Chapter, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "hoarding" means any screen of boards at anyplace, whether public or private used or intendedto be used for exhibiting advertisement, includingthe frame work or other support, erected, whollyor in part upon or over any land, building, wallor structure, visible to public wholly or partly."The word "hoarding" is given the widest meaning. If advertisementis made on the hoardings, which is visible to public, wholly orpartly, then such hoardings comes under the definition underSection 326-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.Thus, the Corporation of Chennai is clutched with power to regulatethose hoardings. 17.Section 326-B prohibits erection of hoardings withoutobtaining licence from the District Collector. Section 326-B isextracted hereunder:"326-B. Prohibition for erection ofhoardings.- (1) No hoarding shall be erected atany place, on or after the 23rd day of July, 1998(hereinafter in this section referred to as thesaid date) by any person without obtaining alicence from the District Collector.:(2) Every person who has erected anyhoarding without obtaining a licence and which isin existence immediately before the said dateshall apply for a licence in accordance with theprovisions of this Chapter within thirty days fromthe said date."18.Section 326-C is relating to application for licence. 19.Section 326-CC is relating to tax on advertisement onhoardings. 20.Section 326-D grants power to the District Collectorto cancel or suspend any licence granted or renewed. 21.Section 326-E gives power to the District Collector toremove any unauthorised hoardings. Section 326-E is extractedhereunder:"326-E. Removal of unauthorised hoarding. -Any hoarding erected without a licence shall beconfiscated and removed by the District Collector,without giving any notice." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22.Section 326-F is also relating to removal of hoardingsin certain other cases. While Section 326-E gives power to theDistrict Collector to remove hoardings that were erected withoutlicence, Section 326-F gives power to remove hoardings, if thehoardings are erected contrary to the conditions of licence and ifthe hoardings are retained after the expiry of the licence. 23.Section 326-G relates to exemption in certain cases. 24.Section 326-H provides for appeal to the Governmentagainst the order of the District Collector refusing to grant orrenew or cancelling or suspending a licence. 25.Section 326-I provides for penalty in the matter ofcontravention of the provisions of Chapter XII-A.26.Section 326-J prohibits erection of certain hoardings.Section 326-J is extracted hereunder:"326–J. Prohibition of erection of certainhoardings. - Notwithstanding anything contained inthis Act or in any other law for the time being inforce or in any judgment, decree or order of anyCourt, tribunal or other authority, - (a)(i) Where any hoarding (other thantraffic sign and road sign) visible to the trafficon the road is hazardous and disturbance to thesafe traffic movement, so as to adversely affectfree and safe of flow of traffic and which is inexistence immediately before the date of thecommencement of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws(Amendment) Act, 2000 (hereafter in this sectionreferred to as the amendment Act), the DistrictCollector shall by notice in writing, require thelincesee or any person in possession, of suchhoarding, to remove such hoarding within such timeas may be specified in the notice:Provided that such time shall not exceedfifteen days from the date of issue of suchnotice;(ii) Where the hoarding referred to in sub-clause (i) is not removed within the timespecified in the notice, the District Collectorshall, without further notice, remove suchhoarding and recover the expenditure for such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ removal as an arrear of land revenue. (b) (i) Where the District Collector issatisfied that the erection of any hoarding (otherthan traffic sign and road sign) visible to thetraffic on the road is hazardous and disturbanceto the safe traffic movement so as to adverselyaffect free and safe flow of traffic, he shall notgrant any licence under section 326-C and no suchhoarding shall be erected, on and from the date ofthe commencement of the amendment Act by anyperson;(ii) Where any hoarding is erected incontravention of sub-clause (i), it shall beconfiscated and removed by the District Collectorwithout any notice."27.As rightly contended by the learned AdditionalAdvocate General appearing for the Corporation of Chennai and thelearned counsel appearing for M/s.IT Expressway Limited, ChapterXII-A has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in THETAMIL NADU OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU [2001 (2) CTC 103] and the same was confirmed by the SupremeCourt in P.NARAYANA BHAT VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (4) SCC554].28.Section 326-A defines the word "hoarding" in thewidest possible terms. It includes hoardings put up "at any place".The word "at any place" is used in Section 326-A. Section 326-Aalso makes it clear that the hoardings erected in public place orprivate place for exhibiting advertisement comes under the saiddefinition, if the same is visible to public, in whole or part. 29.It is not the case of the petitioners that theadvertisements displayed in the hoardings that are erected in theRailway premises are not visible to public wholly or partly. On theother hand, it is the case of the petitioners that since thehoardings are erected in the Railway premises, they need not getlicence under Section 326-C. I am not able to subscribe to the viewcanvassed by the petitioners. The hoardings erected in the Railwaypremises also comes under the definition of Section 326-A. If Ihold, otherwise, the same would defeat the very purpose of the Act.The purpose of the Act was to regulate all the hoardings exhibitingadvertisements that are visible to public. 30.While Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel hassubmitted that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ THE TAMIL NADU OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OFTAMIL NADU [2001 (2) CTC 103], which was confirmed by the SupremeCourt in its judgment in P.NARAYANA BHAT VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU[2001 (4) SCC 554] did not consider the hoardings erected in theRailway premises, the same was disputed by the learned AdditionalAdvocate General appearing for the Corporation of Chennai. Thelearned counsel appearing for M/s.IT Expressway Limited submittedthat the some of the hoardings in the batch of cases decided bythis Court relates to the hoardings erected in the Railwaypremises. In the said judgment, there was no argument advanced bythe hoarders that the hoardings were erected in the Railwaypremises and therefore, they need not get licence. 31.In any event, I am of the view that Section 326-A ofthe Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 does not exemptthe hoardings put up in the Railway premises from the purview ofChapter XII-A of the Act. In fact, the Railway administration hasalso filed an additional affidavit and para 2 of the same isextracted hereunder:"2........ I state that in so far as displayof advertisements in the hoardings erected onRailway properties is concerned, the licensee, ifrequired, should also have to take appropriatepermission from the statutory authorities asrequired by law for such display."32.Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by the learnedAdditional Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing forM/s.IT Expressway Limited that in some of the orders of theRailways permitting the petitioners to erect hoardings, thepetitioners were directed to get licence from the concernedCorporation. The relevant clause in those orders are extractedhereunder:"14.It shall be your responsibility toobtain permission / permit / licence from theMunicipal Corporation or any other Government orlocal departments for display, if and as and whenrequired, so as not to contravene any rule or lawof the land."33.Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel relied onSection 185 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Article 285 of theConstitution of India.34.Section 185 of the Railways Act and Article 285 of theConstitution of India are extracted hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Section 185 of the Railways Act:Taxation on railways for advertisement:- (1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrarycontained in any other law, a railwayadministration shall not be liable to pay any taxto any local authority in respect of anyadvertisement made on any part of the railwayunless the Central Government, by notification,declares the railway administration to be liableto pay the tax specified in such notification.(2) The Central Government may at any timerevoke or vary a notification issued under sub-section (1).""Article 285 of the Constitution of IndiaExemption of property of the Union fromState taxation. - (1) The property of the Unionshall, save in so far as Parliament may by lawotherwise provide, be exempt from all taxesimposed by a State or by any authority within aState. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall, untilParliament by law otherwise provides, prevent anyauthority within a State from levying any tax onany property of the Union to which such propertywas immediately before the commencement of thisConstitution liable or treated as liable, so longas that tax continues to be levied in that State."Section 185 of the Railways Act exempts the Railway administrationfrom payment of tax to any local authority on the advertisement. Inthis case, the Railway administration is not complaining that theywere directed to pay tax on any advertisement. Only in those cases,Section 185 of the Railways Act could be attracted. On the otherhand, the Railway administration has categorically filed a counteraffidavit stating that the petitioners shall obtain licence fromthe concerned Corporation. 35.Likewise, Article 285 of the Constitution of Indiaexempts from all taxes imposed by State or any other authoritywithin a State on the property of the Union (including Railways).It is not the case relating to levying of tax and on the otherhand, the petitioners were directed to comply with Chapter XII-A of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, in the case oferection of hoardings. 36.In all the judgments relied on by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,learned Senior Counsel, the concerned Local Bodies sought to levytax on the properties of the Central Government or the Railways,and issued demand notices. While the demand notices were sought tobe questioned, the High Courts sustained the demand notices. Whenthe matters were taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Courtallowed those writ petitions referring to Article 285 (1) of theConstitution of India. 37.In this case, we are not dealing with such asituation. On the other hand, the judgment of the Supreme Court inLINKS ADVERTISERS AND BUSINESS PROMOTERS VS. COMMISSIONER,CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE [1977 AIR 1646] directly governsthis situation. In the said case, the Corporation of Bangaloresought to regulate the hoardings put up in the Railway premisesthat are facing the road. When the same was questioned by thepersons, who erected the hoardings in the Railway premises, alearned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writpetitions. The Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learnedSingle Judge. The Supreme Court confirmed those judgments. Whileconfirming the view taken by the Karnataka High Court, the SupremeCourt has noted as follows:"The Single Judge of the High Court, whileinterpreting the proviso, observed as follows:"These advertisements in questionare displayed on the hoardings standingclose to the cement fencing at the outermark of the railway property. The cementrailings are hardly about 3 feet inheight and the advertisement boards arevery much above the railings. The Publicstreet to which the advertisements arefacing runs along the cement railings,with no other obstacle between theadvertisement boards and the publicview. Therefore, it can reasonably, besaid that they are fronting the PublicStreet."We find ourselves in complete agreement withthe view taken by the Single Judge." 38.In my view, the said judgment is an authority to holdthat the private parties erecting hoardings in the Railway premises https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are subjected to regulation of the statutory provisions enacted bythe concerned State. In fact, a learned Single Judge of this Courtin M/S.ADVIEW AND OTHERS VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU[W.P.NOS.29239 OF 2010 ETC., BATCH – decided on 28.06.2011],without reference to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court,has held a similar view, which reads as follows:"8.If it is seen in the above angle, thecontentions raised by the petitioners cannot beaccepted. Even a digital flex pasted on the wallor the wall writing or painting either in thebuildings of the Central Government or in anyprivate buildings are also covered by theprovisions of the Chennai City MunicipalCorporation Act, 1919. It cannot be said that theCorporation lacks totally any power in dealingwith the same. 9.The exemption with regard to the propertyof the Union of India from the levy of State taxfound in Section 285 will only relate to tax to belevied and not for observations of othersmunicipal laws. Since Chapter XII-A was upheld bythis Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court, thewrit petitions are devoid of merits andmisconceived. Accordingly, all writ petitions willstand dismissed......"39.In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have nohesitation to dismiss the writ petitions. Accordingly, all thesewrit petitions are dismissed, with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (RupeesTwenty Five Thousand Only) payable by each of the petitioner to therespondent Corporation of Chennai. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Deputy Registrar(J) 5.12.2012* Name of the counsel is incorporated as per the order dt.10.12.2012 by DHPJSd/-Deputy Registrar(J)14.12.2012 /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TKTo1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager) Southern Railway ) Divisional Commercial Manager's Office ) Chennai – 600 003. )Corrected order to be )substituted by the 2.The Commissioner )order already Corporation of Chennai )despatched on 5.12.2012 Rippon Buildings, ) Chennai – 600 003. ) )3.The District Collector ) Chennai District ) Chennai. ) )+1cc to Mr.V.Ramajegadeesan, ADvocate Sr 73530)+1cc to M/s.B.S.G.Firm Advocates Sr 74866+1cc to Mr.A.Karthika Ashok, ADvocate Sr 74948+1cc to Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar, Advocate 73741TS(CO)km/5.12.LA(CO)km/14.12.W.P.NOS.3165, 7322, 13849, 13850AND 27202 OF 2012