Dismissed

Thirumalai Advertising v. the Divisional Engineer

Madras HC9 Nov 2016WP(MD)/11368/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by Thirumalai Advertising challenging the removal of its advertisement boards. The court held that the permission had expired and, in light of a prior PIL directing the removal of all hoardings, ordered the respondent to remove the boards.

What did the court decide?

Ordering the respondent to remove the advertisement boards within two weeks.

Thirumalai Advertising Vs the Divisional Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.11 .2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11368 of 2014 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶7

THIRUMALAI ADVERTISING

¶8

REP BY ITS PARTNER S. SUNDAR VIJAY VIRATTIPATHU MADURAI-2. .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE) HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT MADURAI.

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from removing the advertisement boards put up by the petitioner in Kalavasal bye Pass road Madurai City.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem for Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan Spl. Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by M.V.MURALIDARAN, J. )

¶16

The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking a mandamus forbearing the respondents from removing the advertisement boards put up by the petitioner in Kalavasal bye Pass road Madurai City.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the District Collector has granted permission for putting up the boards in the Kalavasal Bypass Road. He has also produced the agreement, which was executed by the Highways Department to the petitioner. The said period is also only for 25.06.2012 to 24.06.2013.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that the period was expired long back on 24.06.2013 itself.

¶22

In yet another public interest litigation, this Court has already issued a direction to remove all the hoardings and flex boards.

¶23

In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondent to remove the advertisement boards within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

¶30

(CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE) HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT, MADURAI.

¶31

+1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR No.67912

¶32

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.11368 of 2014 & MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 09.11.2016

¶33

¶34

SH/SS-3/SAR-1:18.11.2016:2P/3C

¶35

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

Thirumalai Advertising v. the Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thirumalai Advertising v. the Divisional Engineer

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

Anaithidiya Samuthaya Makkal Vs Union of India

Arunmozhi Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Lakshmi Vs the Commissioner of Police

Lazer @ Rajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Maganlal Mehta and Co, Vs the Assistant Divisional

R. Karmegam Vs the Commissioner