Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : M/s. Balajee publication, the petitioner herein, in this Writ Petition has sought for issue of writ of declaration declaring that the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Hoardings Act, 1985 as unconstitutional void and enforceable. 2. The short facts required to be considered for disposing of this writ petition, are as follows :- The petitioner claims that from 1983, it has been doing the business of undertaking the job of display of hoardings. It erected few hoardings in the premises of the Agri. Horticultural Society in the Woodlands Drive in Hotel complex in 1985. Since the Agri.-Horticultural Society was taken over by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Hoardings Act came to be passed, the petitioner applied for the permission of the Government, the respondents to carry out the repairing work of hoardings installed in the Woodlands Drive-in Hotel Complex. Accordingly, the permission was granted. In the meantime, the respondent Government issued a show cause notice dated 22-11-1990 directing the petitioner to prove that they have erected the hoardings in question in the year 1985. This was issued on the basis of the communication dated 25-10-1990 given by the former Secretary of the Agri.-Horticultural Society, the 5th respondent herein. In this context, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 19305/90 dated 18-12-1990 and the same was admitted by this Court. Besides that, the petitioner has also filed this writ petition seeking for the writ of declaration, as stated supra. 3. In the counter filed by the 5th respondent, it is stated that the averments made by the petitioner in this writ petition that the hoardings were erected in Woodlands Drive-in Hotel in June, 1985 are not correct. It is further stated that the hoardings of the petitioner were recently, erected with a view to get the benefit of the interim orders obtained in the earlier writ petition and as such, the plea that the hoardings were put up as early as June, 1985 is a false one. 4. I Heard Mr. Viduthalai, the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate. The counsel for the 5th respondent is absent. However, I have gone through the counter filed by him. 5. 4. I Heard Mr. Viduthalai, the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate. The counsel for the 5th respondent is absent. However, I have gone through the counter filed by him. 5. Without going to the factual aspects given in the respective affidavits, I am of the view that the writ petition could be disposed on a short ground. 6. Through the prayer sought for in this writ petition, the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Hoardings Act, 1985 is challenged. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners, the very same issue has been raised in a batch of writ petition and the same has been elaborately dealt with and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Key Centre v. Authorised Officer, Hoardings, Collectorate, 1996 Writ LR 765. The conclusion arrived at the said decision is as follows :- "Taking note of all our conclusions, we held that the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Hoardings Act, 1985 is unconstitutional to the extent indicated below, for the various reasons given by us and is hereby struck down only in so far as its applicability to private places are concerned. The Act is upheld in so far as its applicability to public places are concerned. The words "private places" and "public places" shall have the same meaning as given to them in S. 3(h) and (i) of the Act respectively . In other words in the charging Ss. 4 and 18 of the Act, the words "private place" shall stand deleted. Similarly, in all other sections, where the context requires the words "private places" shall be deleted in pursuance of our judgment. However, in the definition clause alone the words "private place" shall be retained. All the above writ petitions and the writ appeal are allowed in the above terms. The Authorities shall take further action in respect of the hoardings in each of the cases strictly in accordance with our judgment rendered above." 7. In view of the above conclusion, I deem it fit to allow this writ petition on the above terms. Consequently, the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Hoardings Act, 1985 is unconstitutional and struck down only in so far as its applicability to private places are concerned. The Act is upheld in so far as its applicability to public places are concerned. 8. Consequently, the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Hoardings Act, 1985 is unconstitutional and struck down only in so far as its applicability to private places are concerned. The Act is upheld in so far as its applicability to public places are concerned. 8. The authorities may take further action in respect of the hoardings in accordance with the principles as mentioned in 1996 Writ LR 765. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Petition allowed.