JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.—Leave granted in all the SLPs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellants in these appeals having been unsuccessful in their challenge before the High Court of Judicature at Madras to the validity of Section 326 of the City Municipal Corporation Act of the State of Tamil Nadu Act 51/1998 and Amended Act 2/2000 (for short ‘the Acts’) and consequential notices issued under the Acts, have preferred these appeals.

4. After hearing the parties concerned since we were at ad-idem with most of the conclusions arrived at by the High Court in its impugned judgment, we thought it appropriate to dispose of the appeals at this stage itself.

5. Before the High Court the appellants challenged the vires of Section 326(J) of the Act, inter alia, on the following grounds :-

(a) Advertisement by hoardings was afundamental right of the appellants under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution;

(b) Power given to the 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.

(c) The limitation imp