Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent. Five hoardings displayed by the second Respondent are the subject matter of this Petition. The Municipal Corporation rejected the applications made by the second Respondent for renewal of licenses to display advertisements on the said five hoardings. First Appeal was preferred by the second Respondent against the said order. By the order dated 13th January, 2016 the said First Appeal preferred by the second Respondent has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that out of the five hoardings, one has come down and now only four hoardings are in existence as of today. Now there is a remedy available to the second Respondent to file a Second Appeal within a period of 30 days. The learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent states that a copy of the order has been served upon the second Respondent yesterday i.e. 14th January, 2016. Therefore, the second Respondent has time available upto 13th February, 2016 to prefer Second Appeal. It is obvious that now and even during the pendency of the Second Appeal, if preferred by the second Respondent, he cannot display any advertisements on the four hoardings. If the Second Appeal is dismissed, the Municipal Corporation will have to forthwith take steps to remove the hoardings. If the second Respondent succeeds in the Second Appeal, the Petitioners will have a remedy to challenge the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority.
