The Hindu : Front Page : All unlicensed hoardings to go

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Apr 10, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

All unlicensed hoardings to go

J. Venkatesan

— Photo: K. Pichumani

A DRIVE: Hoardings being removed by Chennai Corporation officials on Anna Salai in Chennai on Wednesday.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a 2006 judgment of the Madras High Court directing the removal of all hoardings that are unauthorised or unlicensed, and that pose a hazard or obstruct visibility, erected in public and private premises in the State.

A Bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Novva Ads and others challenging the judgment of August 10, 2006. The Bench found no merit in the appeals.

According to the petitioners, there are about 80,000 to 90,000 hoardings throughout Tamil Nadu, including about 10,000 in Chennai. These are erected on public, private and railway property after obtaining permission from the competent authority and paying advertisement tax, lease rent, etc. Rules were amended to the extent that hoardings that were hazardous and causing disturbance would be removed. The High Court upheld these Rules. The appeals were against this judgment.

They argued that the High Court, by the impugned judgment, had set at naught the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain disputes concerning the erection of hoardings. They said the hoardings could be removed only after a committee gave its findings; but the authorities were removing them. The State justified the Rules, contending that the regulation was done with a view to ensuring the security and safety of buildings and traffic movement and safeguarding the interests of pedestrians. The regulation was necessary in the larger public interest and it would not offend the right to carry on business or trade.

On the contention that the State could not encroach into private areas, the State said: “Since the Rules seek to regulate hazardous erection of hoardings, they could not be confined only to public roads and public properties, excluding private properties. Such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of the Rules.” The State argued that the authorities had the power to remove any hoarding erected in contravention of the Rules.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page