( 1 ) THE petitioners are registered advertising. agencies involved in the business of installing advertisement hoardings for their clients. After entering into agreement with the owners of the properties the petitioners had filed their applications before the respondents seeking permission for the erection of the hoardings. These applications had been considered and orders had been passed by the respondents permitting the petitioners to erect hoardings. As the term of the permission/licence originally granted under the Act is limited to one year, on the expiry of the one year period, the petitioners made applications for renewal along with the requisite fee. The respondents have declined in all these cases to renew the permission earlier granted on 6ne ground or the other. Being aggrieved by the said refusal to renew the permission or licence earlier granted, these petitions have been filed by the aggrieved petitioners

( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Vishwajith Shetty for petitioners and Mr. K. N. Puttegowda for the respondent-corporation.

( 3 ) LEARNNED counsel Mr. Vishwajith Shetty submitted that as the case of the respondents rests on S. 443 (10) of the Karnataka municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) the benefit of deemed permission is available to these hoardings and, therefore, the respondents cannot dismantle these hoardings. On the contrary, it is the contention of learned counsel for the corpration Mr. K. N. Puttegowda that even assuming that these hoardings would be Covered by S. 443 ( 10) of the Act the period for which the renewal was sought also being over, in the absence of fresh application for renewal the hoardings in question would be unauthorised hoardings and, therefore the petitioners cannot have any valid objection in law for dismantling these hoardings

( 4 ) AS the entire thrust of the case pleaded by the petitioners is dependent on the deemed permission which, according to the learned counsel for petitioners, is available to them by operation of law, it is relevant to consider the provision to determine whether the relief sought in these petitions could be granted to the petitioner. The relevant provision reads :"443 (10 ). The acceptance by the Corporation of the prepayment of the fee for a licence or permission or for registration shall not entitle the person making such prepayment to the licence or permission or to registration, as the case may be, but only to refund of the fee in icase of refusal of the licence or permission Or of registration, but an applicant for the renewal of a licence or permission or registration, shall until communication of orders on his application be entitled to act as if the licence or permission or registration had been renewed: and save as otherwise specially provided in this act, if orders on an application, for licence or permission of for registration are not communicated to the applicant within forty five days after the receipt of the application by the Commissioner, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year for such less period as is mentioned in the application and subject to the provisions of this. Act, the rules, bye-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed. "a careful reading of the underlined portion of the provision does go to show that the applicant is entitled to act as if the licence or permission has been renewed only until communication of orders to him by the corporation on the renewal application. The later parti of the provision which deals with 'deemed permission' only relates to an application made for registration or licence or permission and not to a renewal application. In all these cases communication has been sent by the respondents turning down the request for renewal. That being the case on facts; with effect from the date when the request for renewal was declined, the hoardings would cease to be authorised hoardings. The provision deals with three aspects viz