COMMON ORDER

1. Heard the arguments of Mr.B.S.Gnanadesikan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.B.S.G.Firm for petitioners, Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned cousnel for Corporation of Chennai.

2. In W.P.No.29239 of 2010, the petitioner is the advertising agency. They sought for a direction to the second respondent Corporation of Chennai not to interfere with the advertisements through digital flex pasted in the walls of the Railway buildings or wall writing/painting in the walls of the Railway buildings in the city of Chennai belonging to the petitioner firm. In that writ petition, after ordering notice, status quo was granted for a limited period and the same was extended from time to time.

3. In W.P.No.26051 of 2010, the petitioner is the association of Wall Painting Advertisers represented by its Secretary. In other writ petitions, the petitioners are all different advertising agencies who have come before this court. In all these writ petitions, the action of the second respondent Corporation of Chennai and in W.P.No.10601 of 2011, the action of the District Collector, Kancheepuram and the District Collector,