SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 206

MARKANDEY KATJU, D.MURUGESAN
XL Visions – Appellant
Versus
National Highways – Respondent


Advocates:
A.R.L. Sundaresan, for Appellant;
V. Raghupathy, Govt. Pleader, and B. Ramamurthy, for Respondents.

Judgement

M. KATJU , J. :- These writ appeals are filed against the impugned orders dated 2-11-2004 and 20-12-2004 in W.P. No. 6646 of 2004 and Review Application No. 83 respectively passed by the learned single Judge.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner challenged the licence granted by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent to display its advertisements in the central median grills on the National Highways No. 67 between kilometers 343 and 344 at different points, railway barricade wall and in the circular park. Admittedly, the appellant was given licence to display its advertisement hoarding on the central median grills on the National Highways No. 67 between 343 km and 344 km. The said licence was valid for one year and could be renewed every year by paying the necessary charges. No doubt, in the letter of the Divisional Engineer (N.H.) Coimbatore dated 8-7-2002, a copy of which is annexed at page No. 19 of the typed set filed in the writ appeals, it is mentioned that the appellant has to renew the licence every year by paying the necessary fees but no specific time limit has been fixed in the said letter for making the application for renewal of the licence. The ap





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top