Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ADGRO ADVERTISING versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Adgro Advertising v. District Collector - WP.Nos.1767 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 179 (18 January 2007)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



Dated : 18.01.2007

Coram:-

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

W.P. Nos.1767 to 1770 of 2007

and

M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2007

Adgro Advertising

rep. By its Proprietor

Suresh Kumar D Jain,

No.30 Maddox Street, 2nd floor,

Choolai, Chennai 112. .. Petitioner in all WPs. -vs-

1. The District Collector,

Chennai District,

Singaravelar Maaligai,

Rajaji Salai, Chennai  1.

2. The Commissioner,

Corporation of Chennai,

Ripon Buildings,

Chennai 3.

3. The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai,

Egmore, Chennai 8. 4. The Joint Commissioner

of Police (Traffic)

Vepery, Chennai 7. .. Respondents in all WPs.

Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the issue of the first respondent's impugned orders Rc.No.J7/38019/2003 dated 27.12.2006, Rc.No.J7/38252/2003 dated 27.12.2006, Rc.No.J7/37060/2003 dated 28.12.2006 and Rc.No.J7/34393/2003 dated 27.12.2006 respectively, quash the same and pass such consequential orders or directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to scrutinize afresh the petitioner's application for licence to the hoarding referred to in the impugned order, after giving opportunity to comply the statutory requirements as per rules. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajendiran

For Respondents : Mr.Rajakalifullah,G.P. (For RR 1,3 and 4) Mr.G.T.Subramanian (For R2) COMMON ORDER



( Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, Chennai dated 27.12.2006 directing the petitioner to remove the hoardings immediately along with the frames and structures supporting it, the petitioner has filed the above writ petitions.

2. Learned Government Pleader has brought to our notice that the issue in question is covered by Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in W.P.Nos.7143 of 2006 etc. batch dated 10.08.2006, reported in 2006(4)MLJ1033 (K.Kanagaraj vs. District Collector, Chennai and others).

3. By applying the said decision, we are of the view that the writ petitions are liable to dismissed, accordingly the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. gms

To

1. The District Collector,

Chennai District,

Singaravelar Maaligai,

Rajaji Salai, Chennai  1.

2. The Commissioner,

Corporation of Chennai,

Ripon Buildings,Chennai 3.

3. The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai,

Egmore, Chennai 8. 4. The Joint Commissioner

of Police (Traffic)

Vepery, Chennai 7.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.