Dismissed

M/s.Ad-Excellent View Point v. The Chief Executive Officer

Madras HC24 Jun 2015WP/17841/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by advertising firms challenging the Cantonment Board's threat to cancel hoarding licenses. The Court held the petitions were premature as the removal of hoardings precedes license cancellation, making them the appropriate time to approach the Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed.

M/s.Ad-Excellent View Point Vs The Chief Executive… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24..06..2015

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶4

W.P. Nos.17841 to 17851 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2015 (11 Nos.) ---------M/s.Ad-Excellent View Point, rep. by its Proprietor Kalpana Sowmy, New No.66, Old No.29, Vaithiyanathan street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. ..Petitioner in WP.17841/15 2.baavesh Ads rep.by Prop.Shanmuganathan ..Petitioner in WP.17842/15 3.Lalitude Media Rep by Its Partner ..Petitioner in WP.17843/15 4.Prakar Vision rep by its Prop.R.Subarayan ..Petitioner in WP.17844/15 5.Alchemy Media Rep by Prop.R.Vijay ..Petitioner in WP.17845/15 6.Aishwarya Adventures ..Petitioner in WP.17846/15 7.M&R Communications Rep by Prop Ramkumar ..Petitioner in WP.17847/15 8.Duyti Ads Rep by its Prop.D.Kamesh ..Petitioner in WP.17848/15 9.Ambujam Advertising rep by its prop.C.D.Meyyappan ..Petitioner in WP.17849/15, 17850 & 17851/15 10. -do11. -doVersus

¶5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶6

The Chief Executive Officer, St.Thomas Mount-cum-Pallavaram Office of the Cantonment Board, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016. ..Respondent in All the petitioners

¶7

W.P.No.17841 of 2015 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from cancelling the allotment letter No.STM/REV/Advt./0280

¶8

2.No.STM/Rev/Advt/155 dt.31.10.14

¶9

3.No.STM/Rev/Advt/0234 dt.18.2.15

¶10

4.No.STM/Rev/Advt/0423 dt.2.3.15 5.No.STM/Rev/Advt/0424 dt.2.3.15 6.No.STM/Rev/Advt/0422 dt.2.3.15 7.No.STM/Rev/Advt/0421 dt.2.3.15

¶11

8.No.STM/Rev/Advt/0359 dt.2.3.15

¶12

9.No.STM/Rev/Advt/0535 dt.6.2.15 10.No.STM/Rev/Advt/0536 dt.30.3.15 11.No.STM/Rev/Advt/0401 dt.17.3.15

¶13

issued by the respondent dated 26.02.2015 and thereby preventing the respondent from removing the existing and proposed execution of hoardings at Cantonment area at St.Thomas Mount.

¶14

----------For Petitioner :: Mr.P.Meenakshisundaram in all WPs. For Respondent :: Mr.S.T.S.Murthy, in all WPs. Government Pleader COMMON ORDER

¶15

(Order of Court was made by The Honourable Chief Justice)

¶16

The petitioners claim that they have subsisting licenses for the hoardings up to 31.03.2016 and yet the Officers of the Cantonment Board came and threatened to remove the hoardings and cancel the licenses.

¶17

We find the petitions premature, as even as per the submission of the petitioners, the removal of hoardings precedes cancellation of licenses. In case the licenses are canceled, naturally reasons would be given for the same, and at that stage, the petitioners can approach the Court, if they are so advised, aggrieved by such action of the respondent.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

The writ petitions stand dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. No costs. Consequently all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Chief Executive Officer,
St.Thomas Mount-cum-Pallavaram
Office of the Cantonment Board,
St.Thomas Mount,
Chennai 600 016.
+11 cc's to Mr.S.P.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate,SR.31031.
Tej(co)
krd 1/7
W.P. Nos.17841 to 17851 of 2015

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Ad-Excellent View Point v. The Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ad-Excellent View Point v. The Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Pachiammal Vs Sabitha IAS

G.Panneerselvam Vs D.Sabitha IAS

K.Krishnan Vs Sabitha IAS

South India Corporation Vs Infrastucture Leasing and Fian

Mr.S.Gnaneswaran Vs The Union of India

V.Prabakaran Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu