The limitation imposed under the Act for applying for licences companyld number be enforced in the absence of any Rules and Forms providing for application for existing hoarding owners.
After hearing the parties companycerned since we were at ad idem with most of the companyclusions arrived at by the High Court in its impugned judgment, we thought it appropriate to dispose of the appeals at this stage itself.
With WPNo.159/2001,CANo 2804/2001SLPNo 6412CC 2533/2001, CA No 2805/2001 SLPNo 6413 CC 2543/2001, CA No 2806/2001 SLPNo 6414 CC 2646/2001, CA No 2807/2001 SLPNo.5840/2001, CA No 2808 2820/2001 SLPNo.5862 74/2001, CA No 2821 2823/2001 SLPNo.5887 89/2001, CA No 2824/2001 SLPNo.5899/2001, CANo 2825/2001 SLPNo.6125/2001, CA No 2826 2827/2001SLPNo.
Before the High Court the appellants challenged the vires of Section 326 J of the Act, inter alia, on the following grounds Advertisement by hoardings was a fundamental right of the appellants under Article 19 1 a of the Constitution Power given to the Commissioner under the impugned Act to remove any hoarding which he felt was hazardous was arbitrary, unreasonable, hence, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
6180 81/2001, CA No 2828/2001 SLPNo.6187/2001, CA No 2829/2001 SLPNo.6188/2001 and CA No 2830/2001 SLPNo.6189/2001.
LITTTTTTTJ The appellants in these appeals having been unsuccessful in their challenge before the High Court of Judicature at Madras to the validity of Section 326 of the City Municipal Corporation Act of the State of Tamil Nadu Act 51/1998 and Amended Act 2/2000 for short the Acts and companysequential numberices issued under the Acts, have preferred these appeals.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Leave granted in all the SLPs.
