JUDGMENT

S. J. MUKHOPADHA Y A, C.J.- In all these appeals as common questions of law are involved and a common judgment and order dated 15th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The questions involved in these cases are:

(i) Whether the respondent-Rajkot Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') has jurisdiction to prohibit a person from erecting hoardings on the top of private houses or on their walls, lands, etc.?

and

(ii) Whether removal of hoardings in the case of the appellants need to be preceded by a show-cause notice from the Corporation?

3. For determination of the issues, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one as mentioned hereunder :

4. Before the learned Single Judge the appellants pleaded that they paid the licence-fee for erection of hoardings to the Corporation, which was duly received by the Corporation upto the accounting period years 2008-2009, and the receipts have already been issued. In the beginning of January, 2009, the Corporation started large-scale demolition of hoardings, arbitrarily and illegally, without issuing any show-cause notice, without hearing the appellants and without following the due process of law.

5. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment while held that proper notices were served on the appellants before demolition of their hoardings, also held that none of the appellants applied for any permission/licence as contemplated under Regulation No. 21, and thereby, they are not entitled for relief and dismissed the writ petitions.

6. Mr. S. B. Vakil, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, while challenging the common judgment would contend that :

(i) No proper notice of show-cause was given asking the appellants as to why their respective hoardings be not demolished; before demolishing the hoardings none of the appellants were given any hearing; and the Corporation ought to have given a reasonable and sufficient time to remove their respective hoardings.

(ii) The action of the Corporation is unreasonable, arbitrary, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(iii) The Revised Development Plan and General Development Control Regulations stipulated under the Revised Draft General Development Control Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Development Control Regulations') framed by the Rajkot Urban Development Authority, Rajkot, have not been sanctioned by the State Government as required under Sec. 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Town Planning Act'). Thereby, the decision to remove the hoardings and to demolish the same on the ground that they are against the provisions of the 'Development Control Regulations' is bad in law.

7. He would further contend that the State Government or its authorities or the Corporation could not show that any notification under Sec. 17 of the Town Planning Act has been issued to suggest that the 'Development Control Regulations' have been approved. In absence of such approval, the Corporation cannot rely on 'Development Control Regulations'.

8. Per contra, according to Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, the appellants having installed huge/big size hoardings on the roof-top of private buildings, private places, etc., and such hoardings being against public interest and the provisions made under the 'Development Control Regulations', notices were issued to them, and after hearing, the hoardings were demolished. He would further contend that in absence of any specific permission, in fact, no notice was required to be issued on the appellants.

9. To decide the issue, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of law, pleading