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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 330

K.GOVINDARAJAN, K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN
Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr.Shanthi Bhushan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.B.S.Gnanadesikan; Mr.T.Mohan; Mr.K.Alagiriswamy, Senior Counsel, for Mr.S.Thankasivam, Counsel for Petitioners, W.PS.11453 of 1998,18928 of 1999, 16631 of 2000, 14397 of 1999, 14404 of 1999 and 18929 of 1999; Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel, for M/s.G.Krishnamoorthy & K.Rajendran in W.P.Nos.9057, 9058, 9128 of 1998, 676 of 1999, 1024, 1025 and 18059 of 1999. Mr.K.Subramanian, Senior Counsel, for Mr.R.Rabu Manohar, in W.P.No. 901, 908, 909, 937, 938 and 947 of 2001and Mr.S.Kanniah, Counsel for Petitioners, in W.P.No.11357 of 1993. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel, for Mr.K.R.Thamizhmani, Special Government Pleader Counsel for Respondents in all W.Ps. Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.R.Natarajan, for Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Counsel for Chennai Corporation and Mr.K.R.Thamizhmani, Counsel for Tirunelveli Corporation.

Judgment :

K. Govindarajan, J.

1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are eager to retain the hoardings erected either in the public places or buildings belonging to the Government, Local bodies, corporations or in the private places, without being checked or regulated by any legislation.

2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.11453 of 1998, 10747 of 1998 9908 of 1999 and 6808 of 2000 have filed the said writ petitions challenging provisions of Act 51 of 1998.

3. The petitioner-association in W.P.No.18928 of 1999 has challenged the public notices issued by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai as notified on 4.10.99 informing that the hoardings for which applications were not filed would be treated as unauthorised hoardings and the same will be removed exercising powers under Section 326 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act.

4. Thepetitioners in W.P.Nos.16614, 16618, 16621, 16631 and 16651 of 2000, 17888, 18218, 18219, 18220, 18646, 18647,18661 & 18662 of 2000, 901, 908, 909, 937, 938, 947, 1609 and 1610 of 2001 have challenged the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 2000.

5. Before dealing with grievances and contentions of the petitioners, it is beneficial to narrate






















































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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