The rejection of a license application must adhere to procedural fairness, including the right to a hearing, before resorting to judicial review.

ORDER :

[S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

The lis on hand has been instituted to assail the proceedings issued by the Additional Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation dated 06.06.2024, rejecting the application for license submitted by the writ petitioner.

2. The petitioner is in the business of Outdoor Advertisement and have been running the business for more than a decade. An application seeking license was filed before the competent authority of Greater Chennai Corporation and the Additional Commissioner/2^nd respondent rejected the same, citing several grounds as stated in the order impugned dated 06.06.2024.

3. Mr.A.K.Sri Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would mainly contend that during the earlier round of litigation, the issues relating to payment of charges were considered and finally in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.25220 of 2018 & etc., the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 28.04.2023, as follows:

“11...............

(A)..........

(B)..........

(C) We make it clear that the petitioners who have not filed applications for license are directed to pay the rent as per the revised rate of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per sq.ft to the Greater Chennai Corporation from the date of erection of hoardings till 13.04.2023.On payment of rents as directed above and filing their applications as per the new Rules within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the respondents are directed to consider the applications of the petitioners, after giving opportunity of hearing and pass orders on the applications as per the new Rules, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of applications. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners. The petitioners are liable to pay charges as per new Rules. It is made clear that if petitioners fail to pay the charges as directed above and fail to submit applications for permission/renewal, it is open to the Corporation to remove the hoardings treating the same as unauthorised hoardings.”

4. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the batch of writ petitions, granted liberty to the eligible persons to submit application seeking license. An opportunity of hearing was also directed to be given and the same was not granted to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is to be set aside.

5. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would urge that the new Rule 326 of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, provides “Conditions for Hoardings” and it provides 43 conditions. The reasons stated in the impugned order are beyond the said terms and conditions stipulated under the said Rule 326 and on that ground also, the order impugned is to be assailed.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation would oppose by stating that an appeal is contemplated under the new Rule 331 and therefore, the writ petitioner has to exhaust the remedy as contemplated under the Rules.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that all the conditions stipulated under Rule 326 of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Rules, are to be considered with reference to the Right to Life enunciated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hoardings are installed in the public premises or roads. Therefore, safety and security of the citizens residing in that locality and the road users are of paramount importance. The lives of those persons, who all are using the roads and private area nearby the Hoardings, are also to be taken into consideration, while considering the application for grant of license. A pra