Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, G.ARUL MURUGAN, J
M/s.Outdoor Advertising Association Chennai – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration Department – Respondent
WP No.6709 of 2026
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.I.Sharukumar
For the Respondents:Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader, for the first respondent, Mr.S.Gopinathan, Standing Counsel, for the second respondent
The court recognized that grievances can be rendered moot if subsequent events resolve the issues raised.
Headnote:The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought to direct the respondents to remove unauthorized hoardings in Chennai. The petitioner later indicated that, due to subsequent events, their grievances were resolved, and thus, opted not to pursue the case further. As a result, the court disposed of the petition as infructuous with no orders as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. resolution of grievances. (Para 1) |
| 2. disposal of petition as infructuous. (Para 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.6709 of 2026 M/s.Outdoor Advertising Association Chennai, A Society Registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration, Rep by its Secretary Mr.K.V.Sukumar, 34/60, South Usman Road, 3rd Floor, T.Nagar, Chennai -600017 : Petitioner versus
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009
2.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai - 600003 : Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove all unauthorized hoardings erected in Chennai and initiate appropriate action against the erectors of such unauthorized hoardings on the basis of the petitioner’s representations dated 6.03.2025, 06.11.2025 and 21.12.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.I.Sharukumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader, for the first respondent Mr.S.Gopinathan, Standing Counsel, for the second respondent ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of subsequent events, the grievance, as ventilated through this petition, stands redressed. Therefore, the petitioner does not wish to press this petition.
2. In view of the same, the petition stands disposed of as having rendered infructuous. There will be no order as to costs.
