The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions had granted permission by the Southern Railway authorities to erect hoardings for display of advertisement in the Railway premises, on payment of licence fee. The Corporation of Chennai has sought to regulate those hoardings by insisting that the petitioners shall obtain licence, otherwise those hoardings could be removed by them. In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking to forbear the respondent Corporation of Chennai from interfering with the hoardings put up by them in the Railway premises.

2. The issue that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to whether the Corporation of Chennai can regulate the hoardings that are put up in the Railway premises, by the private parties, who are the petitioners herein.

3. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. B.S.G. Firm, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7322 of 2012 has submitted that since the hoardings are erected in the Railway premises, the petitioners cannot be asked to take licence in view of Section 185 of the Railways Act, 1989. He also relied on Article 285 of the Constitution of India in this regard. He has relied on the following judgments in support of his submission:

(i) Judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VS. PURNA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS [1992 (1) SCC 100]

(ii) Judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RANCHI AND OTHERS [1996 (7) SCC 542]

(iii) Judgment of the Supreme Court in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AMRITSAR VS. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, AMRITSAR DIVISION AND ANOTHER [2004 (3) SCC 92]

(iv) Judgment of this Court in UNION OF INDIA VS. THE COMMISSIONER (W.P.NO.13990 OF 2012DECIDED ON 30.07.2010]

(v) Judgment of this Court in PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL VS. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI [2010 (5) MLJ 241]

4. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently contended that neither Corporation of Chennai nor M/s.IT Expressway Limited, a company owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, has got power to regulate the hoardings put up by the petitioners in the Railway premises.

5. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel has sought to distinguish the Division Bench judgment of this Court in THE TAMIL NADU OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (2) CTC 103] upholding Acts 51 of 1998 and 26 of 2000 incorporating Chapter XII-A to the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 containing Sections 326-A to 326-J and also the decision of the Supreme Court in P.NARAYANA BHAT VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (4) SCC 554] confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court by contending that in those cases the hoardings on the Railway premises was not under consideration.

6. Likewise, Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K.KANAGARAJ VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHENNAI AND OTHERS [2006 (4) MLJ 1033] upholding the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Licensing of hoarding and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules 2003 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in NOVVA ADS VS. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY AND ANOTHER [2008 (8) SCC 42] confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, do not consider the hoardings erected in the premises of the Railway. Hence, the Corporation of Chennai lacks power to regulate the hoardings erected by the petitioners in the Railway premises.

7. Mr. S. Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3165, 13849, 13850 and 27202 of 2012 adopted the submissions made by Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7322 of 2012.

8. On the other hand, Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Railway has submitted that insof