Regulatory authorities can enforce safety measures over private interests under the Cantonments Act, and actions taken without evidence of discrimination are legally sound.

ORDER :

1. The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. This batch of cases has been filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing impugned notices directing the petitioners to remove the advertisement hoardings on their respective premises situated at Secunderabad, as bad in law, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed this Court to direct the respondent No.2 to restrain from removing the advertisement hoardings from the respective premises and for other appropriate reliefs.

3. Writ Petition No.13829 of 2024 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lis in this batch of cases.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that it is an advertising agency, operating business under the name and style as “the Ad-Space”. It is stated by the petitioner that in addition to the hoarding business, he is also doing business of newspapers, digital media like TV, Radio and having several hoardings in various places and in the process of its business, it entered into an agreement for erection of advertisement hoarding at Plot No.2, Ravi CHS, SSR Arcade, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad on rooftop of the building and carrying out business without any hindrance from any corner by taking utmost care without causing any difficulty to the public for the last several years. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 without conducting any inspection and without there being any evidence that the advertisement hoarding installed by it is causing endanger to the public safety, issued the impugned notice for removal of the hoardings and the said action on the part of respondents amounts to violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and prayed to grant the relief as sought for.

5. The Chief Executive Officer of the respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board (for short “the Board”) is an authority constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) and it is competent to exercise all the powers as a local authority. It is stated that under Section 66 of the Act, the Board is empowered to impose taxes viz., Property Tax, Tax on Trades, Professions Callings and Employments. It is also stated that under Section 67 of the Act, the Board is empowered to charge license fee on advertisements, other than advertisements in newspapers along with other license fees as mentioned in the said Section. Section 348 of the Act enables the Board to make bye-laws and rules to effectively function in terms of the provisions of the Act. It is stated that under Section 348 of the Act, the Board has framed Bye-laws. Bye-law No.17 authorizes the Board to take all measures such as control and supervision of the places where dangerous or offensive trades are carried on, so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minimize any injurious, offensive or dangerous effects arising or likely to arise thereon. Bye-law No.18 states about regulation of erection of any enclosure or other temporary structures of whatsoever material or nature on any land within the Cantonment and fee chargeable in respect thereof. It is further stated that the advertisement elements which are at huge heights from the ground level have collapsed a number of times in the recent past, although certified as stable, thereby creating havoc. It is further stated that the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 prescrib