1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.133 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly removing the advertisement boards mentioned in the suit schedule except under due process of law. The five permanent hoardings put up by the plaintiff / appellant at important locations within the jurisdiction of the respondent corporation are shown in the schedule.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff / appellant that the plaintiff / appellant is running an advertisement company in Tirunelveli and that the plaintiff / appellant, by promoting his business, has got rich experience in advertisement technology. According to the plaintiff / appellant, the five hoardings erected by the plaintiff / appellant were for their clients and that the hoardings were erected only after an application was filed before the District Collector to give them licence to fix the hoardings and advertisement boards. The plaintiff / appellant further stated that they bona fidely believed the second defendant to grant licence. However, according to the plaintiff / appellant, the second defendant had not proceeded further to consider the application submitted by the plaintiff / appellant and to grant licence. It is the further case of the plaintiff / appellant that the second defendant is the competent authority for the grant of licence to instal hoardings and that the hoardings can be removed only by the second defendant. It was further submitted by the plaintiff / appellant that the first defendant Corporation have taken steps for the removal of hoardings without even issuing a show cause notice and hence, the plaintiff / appellant was constrained to file the said suit.

3. The suit was contested by the first defendant respondent specifically denying the stand taken by the plaintiff / appellant that the hoardings were put up by the plaintiff / appellant only after applying for permission from the second defendant. It was the further case of the first defendant that the first defendant is competent to grant licence as per the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 2003 and to take action under the rules and that therefore, it cannot be said that the municipal corporation has no right to take action against unauthorised hoardings.

4. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on Section 162 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, which is also applicable to the first respondent corporation. Section 162 reads as under:

“162.Removal of unauthorized advertisement. - If any advertisement be erected, exhibited, fixed or retained contrary to the provisions of Section 158 or Section 159 or after the written permission for the erection, exhibition, fixation or retention thereof for any period shall have expired or become void, the commissioner may, by notice in writing, require the owner or occupier of the land, building, wall, hoarding or structure upon or over which same is erected, exhibited, fixed or retained to take down or remove such advertisement or may enter any building, land or property and have the advertisement removed.”

5. Finally, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff / appellant has not proved the fact that they had obtained permission or applied for permission from the second defendant / second respondent, to prove their bona fide. When the plaintiff / appellant admitted that he has not obtained licence, they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own flaw to sustain their claim. The trial Court has categorically given a finding against plaintiff / appellant that the plaintiff / appellant has not established his stand that hoardings were erected in lawful manner after getting permission. The lower appellate Court also fell in line with the trial Court and