Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67412
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU, MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Raghavan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Thiruvannamalai City – Respondent
W.P.No.23887 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel, Mrs.V.Srimathi
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Srinivas, Mr.J.Ravindran, Mr.M.Venkateswaran
Municipal licenses do not override statutory requirements for No Objection Certificates from Highways Department for hoardings on highways, emphasizing safety regulations.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 - Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023 - Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 - Removal of advertisement hoardings - Petitioner claimed wrongful removal of hoardings placed under licenses issued by Municipal Corporation - Respondent removed hoardings citing safety concerns related to highways - Court emphasized the necessity of No Objection Certificate from Highways Department for hoardings on highway boundaries. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 10, 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after obtaining licenses and paying requisite fees for erecting hoardings, found them removed abruptly by the second respondent under the claim of adherence to safety regulations on highways, leading to financial loss for the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner's licenses from the Municipal Corporation did not suffice without approval from the Highways Department, rendering the removal of hoardings legitimate.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Municipal Corporation's licenses were valid for erecting hoardings on highways and the requirement of No Objection Certificates from the Highways authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without the necessary No Objection Certificate from the Highways Department, the Municipal licenses could not be considered valid, reiterating the priority of safety regulations over commercial interests.
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. restoration of advertisement hoardings due to licensed approval. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. disputed authority over hoarding removal and necessary approvals. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. necessary approvals for hoardings from highways department. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. public safety outweighs commercial interests regarding hoardings. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed. (Para 17) |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU,J.)
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to restore the advertisement hoardings placed by the petitioner throughout Thiruvannamalai City in pursuance of licence issued by the 1st respondent under License No.1 of 2025 dated 13.02.2025 and License No.2 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025 and further direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the licences hoarding.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been running a Company in the name and style of 'Nava Sai Media' in Thiruvannamalai and in order to promote his business, he has proposed to erect hoardings after obtaining approval from the Municipal authorities, stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act , 1998 and the corresponding 2023 Rules. The petitioner has also remitted necessary fees, aggregating Rs.11,89,400/- for erection of 140 boards. After receipt of the fees, he was given License Nos.1 & 2 on 13.02.2025 and 17.03.2025 respectively for placing hoardings at Venkikal-Anna Arch, Gandhi Nagar bye-pass and Thindivanam Salai.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that all of a sudden, the 2nd respondent had removed the hoardings in the month of April, 2025 without any notice and caused huge financial loss to the petitioner. The reason adduced by the 2nd respondent for removal of hoardings was that the boards were erected on the highways, which cannot be accepted for the reason that all the places, where hoardings were erected fall within the jurisdiction of 1st respondent and as such, the 2nd respondent cannot object to the erection of hoardings on the places earmarked by the 1st respondent.
4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the hoardings were placed on the permitted locations, namely Girivala Pathai in Thiruvannamalai and at the instance of the business rivalry, the 2nd respondent has removed the hoardings without knowing the correct distinction between the roads on the highways and the roads falling within the city limits connecting the highway. Under Regulation 325 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, there is prohibition of placement of hoardings in sensitive areas and the places in which the petitioner placed boards are not sensitive areas. The act of the 2nd respondent is against Regulation 322 r/w 328 of the Rules, 2023, which contemplate that the power to grant licenses, etc for erecting hoards vests with the Municipal Corporation within its jurisdiction and the same cannot be usurped by the 2nd respondent. Hence, aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court for a suitable direction.
5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been inter alia stated as follows:
i) Erection of centre median displays with neon lights is not permitted, as such displays distract the drivers of the vehicles and the decision not to grant permission to erect advertisements within the Highways boundary was taken by the Highways and Minor Ports (HV1) Department on the basis of the various orders of this Court and the Supreme Court. This Court specifically concurred in W.P.No.41289 of 2016 on 30.10.2017 that no obstruction or distraction should be made to the drivers of fast moving vehicles on the highways. A policy on roadside advertisement has been formulated by Indian Road Congress vide IRC:46- 1972 and the Central Ministry vide Circular No.RW/NH- 33044/35/2001/S&R(R) dated 16.05.2002 ensured that no advertisement hoardings are permitted on the National Highways, except informatory signs of public interest.
ii) On
