Putting up hoardings on land which does not belong to the municipal corporation is not banned

Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 25th September 2020

Chennai Hoardings Associations Vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu

FACTS:

In this case, the petitioners- Chennai Hoarding Association filed a writ petition in the High court of madras against a law which did not allow the municipal corporations to place hoardings in the land which did not belong to them, which meant that the organisations or association who did the work of erecting hoardings had lost their business completely as their rights were taken away by the above mentioned amendment of the law. The petitioner had the concern that this was taking away his constitutional right of practicing any trade he wants as this amendment was not allowing him to do so and it was a violation under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. 

ISSUE:

Whether mentioning “Belonging to corporation” is a violation of article 14 under the Constitution of India and whether it is a violation of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution by not allowing the petitioner to practice any trade?

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner contended that the amendment which was made in the Section 410-A of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 does not hold any rational value as the amendment itself is illogical as it prevents the placing of hoardings in any building wall, structure or any land which does not belong to the municipal corporation and which is visible to the public eye. The petitioner further said that the extent of powers that are of privilege to the Municipal Corporations and Municipal Bodies is enough to protect any given hazard or environmental violation or being contrary to the ambience of a town and city.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

The respondent contended that, it would help in keeping track of the hoardings put up and regulates the whole process, there is not restriction of trade as alleged by the Chennai Hoarding association as it does not stop them from conducting their trade and business. The respondent further said that the amendment was made for a valid reason and there are no irregularities in it., they said that the amendment defines only the places where hoardings can or should be set up for advertisement, which is in purview with the policy that was adopted after consulting experts and after examining such material that was relevant for the particular purpose.

JUDGMENT:

The bench said that “There is no rationality in totally excluding private land or State government land or otherwise the land belonging to the Central government like the Railways. The choice to grant licence or otherwise is still there and any violation of the restrictions imposed can still be a matter of application by the municipal corporation.” Further the court emphasized that only the Phrase “belonging to the corporation” is a violation of article 14 of the Indian Constitution and that should be removed by the Chennai Hoarding Association, and concluded that the ban should be lifted but with the exception that they cannot be permitted to put up hoardings in land which they are not permissible to do so.