Madras High Court
M/S.Sri Ragavendra Ad Lab vs The Senior Divisional Commercial ... on 4 December, 2012
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04 / 12 / 2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NOS.3165, 7322, 13849, 13850 AND 27202 OF 2012
AND CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS
W.P. NO. 3165 / 2012
--------------------
M/s.Sri Ragavendra Ad Lab
Rep. by its Proprietor
22/28, Ammaiyappan Lane,
Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager
Southern Railway
Divisional Commercial Manager's Office
Chennai 600 003.
2.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai 600 003. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent, its officers, subordinates or any one acting under or through him from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's right to carry on its business by keeping the display boards in the places allotted by 1st respondent at (i) Two Display Boards both sides of LB Road, (ii) One Board at the junction near Station building at Thiruvanmiyur, (iii) Four boards, at Padi Railway station facing G.N.T. Road, issued by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Rajendrakumar
For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
For Respondent-2 : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.G.Anantharangan
W.P. NO.7322 / 2012
-------------------
M/s.Prakash Arts
Rep. by its Branch Manager M.Yogan
Real Towers No.2, 2nd Floor,
No.51/51, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai 600 004. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager
Southern Railway
Chennai Division
Chennai 600 003.
2.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai 600 003.
3.M/s.IT Expressway Limited
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sindur Pantheon Plaza,
2nd Floor, No.346, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
(R3 impleaded as per order dated
17.08.2012 in M.P.No.2/2012 in
W.P.No.7322 / 2012)
4.The District Collector
Chennai District
Chennai.
(R4 impleaded as per order dated
28.09.2012 in M.P.No.5/2012 in
W.P.No.7322 / 2012) .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the display boards erected by the petitioner in the property owned and licenced by the 1st respondent the details of which are given in the schedule to the petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan
Senior Counsel for M/s.B.S.G. Firm
For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
For Respondent-2 : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.G.Anantharangan
For Respondent-3 : Mr.V.Ramajagadeesan
W.P. NO.13849 / 2012
--------------------
M/s.Bass
Rep. by its Proptrx B. Mangayarkarasi
No.8/109, Kavimani Road,
Mogappair West,
Chennai 600 037. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager
Southern Railway
Divisional Commercial Manager's Office
Chennai 600 003.
2.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai 600 003. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent, its officers, subordinates or any one acting under or through him from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's right to carry on its business by keeping the display boards / Vinyl stickers in the places allotted by the 1st respondent (i) Thiruvanmiyur Station facing West Avenue Road, (ii) Near Indra Nagar Station Building facing KTBR Railway Station (iii) Between KTBR & INDR Stations facing KTBR between pillar Nos.486-487 under valid licence issued by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Rajendrakumar
For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
For Respondent-2 : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Arunmozhi
W.P. NO.13850 / 2012
--------------------
M/s.Ad View
Rep. by its Partner A.P.Baskaran
70AB, Kodambakkam Road,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager
Southern Railway
Divisional Commercial Manager's Office
Chennai 600 003.
2.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai 600 003. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent, its officers, subordinates or any one acting under or through him from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's right to carry on its business by keeping the display boards / Vinyl pasting / Wall painting in the places allotted by the 1st respondent (i) On the Wall at Madras Fort Station facing MPK and (ii) in the abandoned booking office at the Madras Fort Station facing Dental College (iii) Wall painting on the outside curve shape of Aluminium composite panel one side facing Madhya Kailash and the other side facing Adyar Bus Stop at KTBR Railway Station (iv) Wall Painting below the curve shape of the Aluminium Composite panel one side facing Madhya Kailash and other side facing Adyar Bus Terminus on the space between pillars in the places allotted by 1st respondent under valid licence issued by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Rajendrakumar
For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
For Respondent-2 : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Arunmozhi
W.P. NO.27202 / 2012
--------------------
M/s.Bass
Rep. by its Proptrx B. Mangayarkarasi
No.8/109, Kavimani Road,
Mogappair West,
Chennai 600 037. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager
Southern Railway
Divisional Commercial Manager's Office
Chennai 600 003.
2.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd.,
Sindur Pantheon Plaza, Second Floor,
No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent, its officers, subordinates or any one acting under or through him from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's right to carry on its business by keeping the display boards / Vinyl stickers in the places allotted by the 1st respondent (i) Glow sign boards between Thiruvanmiyur Tharamani between pillars 602-603 facing SRP Tools, (ii) Near Thiruvanmiyur Pillar No.569 facing Tidel Park, (iii) Near Thiruvanmiyur facing SRP Tools Near Pillar No.570, (iv) Near Pillar No.569, facing Kasturibai Station side (v) Near pillar No.467 facing Guindy side and (vi) Vinyl sticker near Thiruvanmiyur near Pillar No.569 facing Tidel Park under valid licence issued by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Rajendrakumar
For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel for Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
For Respondent-2 : Mr.V.Ramajagadeesan
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions had granted permission by the Southern Railway authorities to erect hoardings for display of advertisement in the Railway premises, on payment of licence fee. The Corporation of Chennai has sought to regulate those hoardings by insisting that the petitioners shall obtain licence, otherwise those hoardings could be removed by them. In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking to forbear the respondent Corporation of Chennai from interfering with the hoardings put up by them in the Railway premises.
2.The issue that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to whether the Corporation of Chennai can regulate the hoardings that are put up in the Railway premises, by the private parties, who are the petitioners herein.
3.Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.B.S.G.Firm, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7322 of 2012 has submitted that since the hoardings are erected in the Railway premises, the petitioners cannot be asked to take licence in view of Section 185 of the Railways Act, 1989. He also relied on Article 285 of the Constitution of India in this regard. He has relied on the following judgments in support of his submission:
(i) Judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VS. PURNA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS [1992 (1) SCC 100]
(ii) Judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RANCHI AND OTHERS [1996 (7) SCC 542]
(iii) Judgment of the Supreme Court in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AMRITSAR VS. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, AMRITSAR DIVISION AND ANOTHER [2004 (3) SCC 92]
(iv) Judgment of this Court in UNION OF INDIA VS. THE COMMISSIONER (W.P.NO.13990 OF 2012 DECIDED ON 30.07.2010]
(v) Judgment of this Court in PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL VS. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI [2010 (5) MLJ 241]
4.Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently contended that neither Corporation of Chennai nor M/s.IT Expressway Limited, a company owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, has got power to regulate the hoardings put up by the petitioners in the Railway premises.
5.Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel has sought to distinguish the Division Bench judgment of this Court in THE TAMIL NADU OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (2) CTC 103] upholding Acts 51 of 1998 and 26 of 2000 incorporating Chapter XII-A to the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 containing Sections 326-A to 326-J and also the decision of the Supreme Court in P.NARAYANA BHAT VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (4) SCC 554] confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court by contending that in those cases the hoardings on the Railway premises was not under consideration.
6.Likewise, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K.KANAGARAJ VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHENNAI AND OTHERS [2006 (4) MLJ 1033] upholding the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Licensing of hoarding and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules 2003 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in NOVVA ADS VS. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY AND ANOTHER [2008 (8) SCC 42] confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, do not consider the hoardings erected in the premises of the Railway. Hence, the Corporation of Chennai lacks power to regulate the hoardings erected by the petitioners in the Railway premises.
7.Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3165, 13849, 13850 and 27202 of 2012 adopted the submissions made by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7322 of 2012.
8.On the other hand, Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Railway has submitted that insofar as the display of advertisement in the hoardings erected on Railway properties is concerned, the licencee, if required, should also have to take appropriate permission from the statutory authorities, as required by law for such display. That is, the Railway authorities have not supported the claim of the petitioners as such and it is their submission that the statutory provisions will govern the situation.
9.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Corporation of Chennai has submitted that the petitioners have failed to get prior permission from the competent authority for putting up advertisement on the hoardings as per Chapter XII-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and he relied more particularly on Sections 326-A, 326-B, 326-C and 326-J of the said Act. In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on a common order passed by this Court in M/S.ADVIEW AND OTHERS VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [W.P.Nos.29239 of 2010 etc., batch decided on 28.06.2011] and the judgment of the Supreme Court in LINKS ADVERTISERS AND BUSINESS PROMOTERS VS. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE [1977 AIR 1646].
10.The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the constitutional validity of Chapter XII-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 that was incorporated by way of Act 58 of 1991 and Act 26 of 2000 was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in THE TAMIL NADU OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (2) CTC 103] and the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in P.NARAYANA BHAT VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (4) SCC 554]. It was submitted that the very purpose of introducing Chapter XII-A was in the interest of public and thus, the hoardings could be regulated by the Corporation of Chennai, as per the provisions of Chapter XII-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. He produced various photographs and submitted that the hoardings and the advertisements thereon are just adjacent to the busy OMR Road (Old Mahabalipuram Road).
11.The learned Additional Advocate General vehemently contended that the permission given by the Railway authorities to the petitioners to erect hoardings in their premises is not sufficient to erect the hoardings and put up advertisement thereon without getting licence from the Corporation of Chennai as provided under Chapter XII-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. Since the petitioners did not obtain licence before erecting the hoardings, those hoardings are unauthorised and illegal and are liable to be removed.
12.Mr.V.Ramajegadeesan, learned counsel appearing for M/s.IT Expressway Limited submitted that Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Old Mahabalipuram Road) is being maintained by M/s.IT Expressway Limited, by way of a partnership and development agreement dated 23.02.2005 entered into between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the IT Expressway Limited. As per Article 2(1)(d) of the said agreement, the said company has been authorised to collect licence fee from the advertiser. The petitioners have erected hoardings alongside Rajiv Gandhi Salai contrary to the provisions contained in Section 326-J of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and Rule-6 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Hoardings Rules, 2003 and without obtaining any valid licence from the Corporation of Chennai. He made similar submissions as made by the learned Additional Advocate General.
13.I have considered the submissions made on either side.
14.The issue that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners can erect hoardings, without getting licence from the Corporation of Chennai, for displaying advertisements on the hoardings, as provided under Chapter XII-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
15.An ordinance to amend the laws relating to the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in the State of Tamil Nadu to regulate erection of hoardings was promulgated by Tamil Nadu Ordinance 2 of 1998. The said Ordinance was promulgated with a view to regulate the erection of hoardings on the road side and over the buildings of the City of Chennai and in other urban areas of the State, without proper licence. The said Ordinance was subsequently enacted as Act 51 of 1998. The same inserted Sections 326-A to 326-I of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and also in other Acts governing the other Corporations and also in Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Later, further amendment was introduced by Act 26 of 2000 incorporating Section 326-J of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
16.Section 326-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 defines the word "hoarding" and the same is extracted hereunder:
"326-A. Definition. In this Chapter, "hoarding" means any screen of boards at any place, whether public or private used or intended to be used for exhibiting advertisement, including the frame work or other support, erected, wholly or in part upon or over any land, building, wall or structure, visible to public wholly or partly."
The word "hoarding" is given the widest meaning. If advertisement is made on the hoardings, which is visible to public, wholly or partly, then such hoardings comes under the definition under Section 326-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. Thus, the Corporation of Chennai is clutched with power to regulate those hoardings.
17.Section 326-B prohibits erection of hoardings without obtaining licence from the District Collector. Section 326-B is extracted hereunder:
"326-B. Prohibition for erection of hoardings.- (1) No hoarding shall be erected at any place, on or after the 23rd day of July, 1998 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said date) by any person without obtaining a licence from the District Collector.:
(2) Every person who has erected any hoarding without obtaining a licence and which is in existence immediately before the said date shall apply for a licence in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter within thirty days from the said date."
18.Section 326-C is relating to application for licence.
19.Section 326-CC is relating to tax on advertisement on hoardings.
20.Section 326-D grants power to the District Collector to cancel or suspend any licence granted or renewed.
21.Section 326-E gives power to the District Collector to remove any unauthorised hoardings. Section 326-E is extracted hereunder:
"326-E. Removal of unauthorised hoarding. - Any hoarding erected without a licence shall be confiscated and removed by the District Collector, without giving any notice."
22.Section 326-F is also relating to removal of hoardings in certain other cases. While Section 326-E gives power to the District Collector to remove hoardings that were erected without licence, Section 326-F gives power to remove hoardings, if the hoardings are erected contrary to the conditions of licence and if the hoardings are retained after the expiry of the licence.
23.Section 326-G relates to exemption in certain cases.
24.Section 326-H provides for appeal to the Government against the order of the District Collector refusing to grant or renew or cancelling or suspending a licence.
25.Section 326-I provides for penalty in the matter of contravention of the provisions of Chapter XII-A.
26.Section 326-J prohibits erection of certain hoardings. Section 326-J is extracted hereunder:
"326J. Prohibition of erection of certain hoardings. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority, -
(a)(i) Where any hoarding (other than traffic sign and road sign) visible to the traffic on the road is hazardous and disturbance to the safe traffic movement, so as to adversely affect free and safe of flow of traffic and which is in existence immediately before the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2000 (hereafter in this section referred to as the amendment Act), the District Collector shall by notice in writing, require the lincesee or any person in possession, of such hoarding, to remove such hoarding within such time as may be specified in the notice:
Provided that such time shall not exceed fifteen days from the date of issue of such notice;
(ii) Where the hoarding referred to in sub-clause (i) is not removed within the time specified in the notice, the District Collector shall, without further notice, remove such hoarding and recover the expenditure for such removal as an arrear of land revenue.
(b) (i) Where the District Collector is satisfied that the erection of any hoarding (other than traffic sign and road sign) visible to the traffic on the road is hazardous and disturbance to the safe traffic movement so as to adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic, he shall not grant any licence under section 326-C and no such hoarding shall be erected, on and from the date of the commencement of the amendment Act by any person;
(ii) Where any hoarding is erected in contravention of sub-clause (i), it shall be confiscated and removed by the District Collector without any notice."
27.As rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Corporation of Chennai and the learned counsel appearing for M/s.IT Expressway Limited, Chapter XII-A has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in THE TAMIL NADU OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (2) CTC 103] and the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court in P.NARAYANA BHAT VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (4) SCC 554].
28.Section 326-A defines the word "hoarding" in the widest possible terms. It includes hoardings put up "at any place". The word "at any place" is used in Section 326-A. Section 326-A also makes it clear that the hoardings erected in public place or private place for exhibiting advertisement comes under the said definition, if the same is visible to public, in whole or part.
29.It is not the case of the petitioners that the advertisements displayed in the hoardings that are erected in the Railway premises are not visible to public wholly or partly. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners that since the hoardings are erected in the Railway premises, they need not get licence under Section 326-C. I am not able to subscribe to the view canvassed by the petitioners. The hoardings erected in the Railway premises also comes under the definition of Section 326-A. If I hold, otherwise, the same would defeat the very purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act was to regulate all the hoardings exhibiting advertisements that are visible to public.
30.While Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in THE TAMIL NADU OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (2) CTC 103], which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in P.NARAYANA BHAT VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2001 (4) SCC 554] did not consider the hoardings erected in the Railway premises, the same was disputed by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Corporation of Chennai. The learned counsel appearing for M/s.IT Expressway Limited submitted that the some of the hoardings in the batch of cases decided by this Court relates to the hoardings erected in the Railway premises. In the said judgment, there was no argument advanced by the hoarders that the hoardings were erected in the Railway premises and therefore, they need not get licence.
31.In any event, I am of the view that Section 326-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 does not exempt the hoardings put up in the Railway premises from the purview of Chapter XII-A of the Act. In fact, the Railway administration has also filed an additional affidavit and para 2 of the same is extracted hereunder:
"2........ I state that in so far as display of advertisements in the hoardings erected on Railway properties is concerned, the licensee, if required, should also have to take appropriate permission from the statutory authorities as required by law for such display."
32.Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for M/s.IT Expressway Limited that in some of the orders of the Railways permitting the petitioners to erect hoardings, the petitioners were directed to get licence from the concerned Corporation. The relevant clause in those orders are extracted hereunder:
"14.It shall be your responsibility to obtain permission / permit / licence from the Municipal Corporation or any other Government or local departments for display, if and as and when required, so as not to contravene any rule or law of the land."
33.Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel relied on Section 185 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Article 285 of the Constitution of India.
34.Section 185 of the Railways Act and Article 285 of the Constitution of India are extracted hereunder:
"Section 185 of the Railways Act:
Taxation on railways for advertisement:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, a railway administration shall not be liable to pay any tax to any local authority in respect of any advertisement made on any part of the railway unless the Central Government, by notification, declares the railway administration to be liable to pay the tax specified in such notification.
(2) The Central Government may at any time revoke or vary a notification issued under sub-section (1)."
"Article 285 of the Constitution of India Exemption of property of the Union from State taxation. - (1) The property of the Union shall, save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide, be exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall, until Parliament by law otherwise provides, prevent any authority within a State from levying any tax on any property of the Union to which such property was immediately before the commencement of this Constitution liable or treated as liable, so long as that tax continues to be levied in that State."
Section 185 of the Railways Act exempts the Railway administration from payment of tax to any local authority on the advertisement. In this case, the Railway administration is not complaining that they were directed to pay tax on any advertisement. Only in those cases, Section 185 of the Railways Act could be attracted. On the other hand, the Railway administration has categorically filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners shall obtain licence from the concerned Corporation.
35.Likewise, Article 285 of the Constitution of India exempts from all taxes imposed by State or any other authority within a State on the property of the Union (including Railways). It is not the case relating to levying of tax and on the other hand, the petitioners were directed to comply with Chapter XII-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, in the case of erection of hoardings.
36.In all the judgments relied on by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel, the concerned Local Bodies sought to levy tax on the properties of the Central Government or the Railways, and issued demand notices. While the demand notices were sought to be questioned, the High Courts sustained the demand notices. When the matters were taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court allowed those writ petitions referring to Article 285 (1) of the Constitution of India.
37.In this case, we are not dealing with such a situation. On the other hand, the judgment of the Supreme Court in LINKS ADVERTISERS AND BUSINESS PROMOTERS VS. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE [1977 AIR 1646] directly governs this situation. In the said case, the Corporation of Bangalore sought to regulate the hoardings put up in the Railway premises that are facing the road. When the same was questioned by the persons, who erected the hoardings in the Railway premises, a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Supreme Court confirmed those judgments. While confirming the view taken by the Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court has noted as follows:
"The Single Judge of the High Court, while interpreting the proviso, observed as follows:
"These advertisements in question are displayed on the hoardings standing close to the cement fencing at the outer mark of the railway property. The cement railings are hardly about 3 feet in height and the advertisement boards are very much above the railings. The Public street to which the advertisements are facing runs along the cement railings, with no other obstacle between the advertisement boards and the public view. Therefore, it can reasonably, be said that they are fronting the Public Street."
We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Single Judge."
38.In my view, the said judgment is an authority to hold that the private parties erecting hoardings in the Railway premises are subjected to regulation of the statutory provisions enacted by the concerned State. In fact, a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/S.ADVIEW AND OTHERS VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [W.P.NOS.29239 OF 2010 ETC., BATCH decided on 28.06.2011], without reference to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, has held a similar view, which reads as follows:
"8.If it is seen in the above angle, the contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be accepted. Even a digital flex pasted on the wall or the wall writing or painting either in the buildings of the Central Government or in any private buildings are also covered by the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. It cannot be said that the Corporation lacks totally any power in dealing with the same.
9.The exemption with regard to the property of the Union of India from the levy of State tax found in Section 285 will only relate to tax to be levied and not for observations of others municipal laws. Since Chapter XII-A was upheld by this Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and misconceived. Accordingly, all writ petitions will stand dismissed......"
39.In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to dismiss the writ petitions. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are dismissed, with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) payable by each of the petitioner to the respondent Corporation of Chennai. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
TK To
1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Commercial Manager's Office Chennai 600 003.
2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings, Chennai 600 003.
3.The Managing Director M/s.IT Expressway Limited Sindur Pantheon Plaza, 2nd Floor, No.346, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
4.The District Collector Chennai District Chennai