Court must be guided by statutory public purpose underlying regulatory provisions.

A.P. SHAH, C.J.

W.P. Nos. 7143 of 2006 and 24154 of 2003 are filed in public interest, seeking inter alia, the issuance of appropriate writs, orders or directions to the respondents for the purpose of securing the removal of hoardings which continue to be erected and displayed unlawfully upon the public places and public lands in the city of Chennai. The grievance of the petitioners is that thousands of hoardings are erected on public lands, on the roadsides, on the pavements and platforms, and these hoardings are not only hazardous to traffic but also to public, since the pedestrians are compelled to walk on the roads facing risk to their lives. The State Exchequer is also losing revenue, since the owners of those hoardings are not paying any ground rent or advertisement tax. As a result, the Government is losing its revenue to the tune of Rs. 40 to 50 crores every year. It is also highlighted that almost all political parties in and around the city of Chennai are erecting innumerable hoardings all around the city. There are number of specifications for the erection of such hoardings within the limits of the Corporation, but none of the political parties seem to follow the rules and regulations and the Corporation of Chennai is also not taking any measure either to regulate such hoardings or to collect the fees. It is contended that there was a complete failure on the part of the law enforcing agencies, statutorily vested with regulatory powers to discharge their duties in accordance with law.

2. W.P. No. 19056of 2003 and other companion petitions in the batch are preferred by the hoarding owners, or as the case may be, by persons claiming to be entitled to assert a right to erect hoardings in public as well as private places questioning the validity of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 2003 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the rules’ for short). Broadly speaking, the contention of the petitioners is that the rules are arbitrary and impose unreasonable restrictions and thus, violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(l)(a) and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution.

3. Beforedealing with the grievances and contentions of the parties, it is necessary to narrate the necessary facts in a nutshell to appreciate the controversy raised in the petitions.

4. It appears that since 1970 the hoardings were permitted to be erected by individuals or companies in public places on the basis of the Board Standing Orders and G.Os. issued by the State Government from time to time. In June 1979, when the Government decided to remove all the hoardings for the purpose of auctioning the sites, some of the hoarding owners filed writ petitions to restrain the authorities from removing the hoardings. They were disposed of on 25.1.1980 after recording the statement of the authorities that the hoardings would not be demolished or removed except in accordance with law. It appears that thereafter the authorities decided not to renew the existing leases for erecting the hoardings. When the Municipal Corporation threatened to remove the hoardings for nonpayment of tax as prescribed under the Chen-nai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), another batch of writ petitions was filed on the basis of the promise made by the authorities in the earlier batch of writ petitions not to remove the hoardings.

5. At this stage, the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Hoardings Act, 1985 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Acquisition Act’ for short) came to be passed providing for acquisition of hoardings in public as well as private places. In view of the enactment of the said Act, the batch of writ petitions challenging the action of Chennai Corporation filed earlier was withdrawn and another batch of writ petitions was filed challenging the said Act itself. The Division Bench in Key Centre & others v. Hoar