The High Court dismissed the writ petition as a gross abuse of process and issued interim orders directing the petitioner to remove the illegal hoarding immediately and pay exemplary costs.
Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000 and 48 hours granted to bring down the hoardings, failing which action may be taken without notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.12.2014
CORAM
The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.No.7778 of 2014
Yatra Media .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Chennai.
(R-3 impleaded as per order
dated 07.10.2014 in WP.7778/2014) .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2 nd respondent
not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner to advertise its
business through digital flex situated at No.10, Dr.Durghabai
Deshmukh Road, Chennai-28.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Saikrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy
Govt. Pleader for RR1 to 3
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner seeks to base his right on a Leave and Licence agreement dated 14.11.2013 with one Tmt.Selvi Kurumans. The Leave and Licence only says that the Licensors are in possession of and are paying the revenue rent from 1986 onwards in respect of the property. Documents of title have not been filed.
2.The counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent / Corporation states that the hoardings, where digital display boards are installed, are actually on the river bank, which vests with the Public Works Department. There is stated to be no warehouse, but only a shed, which was locked at the time of inspection. This shed is also stated to be on the banks of Adyar river. No permission has been obtained for erecting steel structures and advertisements, as required under Chapter XII-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. The stand of the third respondent / Collector is also the same.
3.An additional counter-affidavit has been affirmed on 14.11.2014 by the Collector stating that there is encroachment of Government land, the river bank cannot belong to any party as stated. The counter-affidavit suggests that actually the petitioner is not a service provider, stockist of beverages, etc., rather has only constructed a small room to set up the hoardings.
4.We are of the view that the aforesaid counter-affidavit makes the stand very clear. It appears to be a gross abuse of process, whereby large hoardings have been erected and to give it a semblance of legality, a small room has been constructed, which is claimed to be a godown, where the Board is being displayed. The photographs, today produced in Court, fully substantiate this position. In fact, the description of the petitioner itself appears to be to suggest that it is an advertisement business.
5.The petitioner misrepresented in the petition as if the digital flex board has been displayed above the shop for the purpose of displaying the products that are warehoused, while this is not the position. In fact, the setting up of hoardings and the display thereon amounts to use of Government land for their own monetary benefits, for which the Government is free to recover charges in accordance with law. The Government is further free to proceed against the petitioner qua any unauthorised construction, but in accordance with the statutory provisions and it should be ensured that defective notices are not issued to create cause of action in favour of the petitioner.
6.We are of the view that this petition is an abuse of process of Court and is dismissed with exemplary costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Campus, within fifteen days from today.
7.The petitioner is granted 48 hours to bring down the complete hoardings, failing which the Government is free to proceed against the hoardings, without any further notice.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS II )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sra
To
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Chennai.
copy to
The Assistant Registrar
Mediation and conciliation Centre
High Court, Madras
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 58900
W.P.No.7778 of 2014
SR (CO)
kk 15/12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim to warn against interference with advertising rights based on a leave and licence agreement constitutes a gross abuse of the court's process.
Whether the petitioner is authorised to set up a digital hoarding on Government river bank land without obtaining the requisite permit.
Whether the petitioner misrepresented the facts to establish the necessity for the display of the digital hoarding.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Yatra Media
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai
The District Collector, Chennai
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
