Judgement P. D. DINAKARAN, J. :- The appellant, advertising consultancy, has filed a writ petition W.P. No. 20924 of 2000 challenging the proceedings of the second respondent herein namely, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai dated 22-11-2000, whereunder Mr. Ethirajan/writ petitioner, was directed to remove two hoardings situated at Y.M.C.A., Nandanam having size of 100' X 25' on the ground that the appellant/writ petitioner failed to prove i) that the said hoardings were in existence on or before 23-7-1998 and the petitioner filed application for regularization of the same on or before 2-12-1998 to the Corporation of Chennai; ii) that they obtained stay order from the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and iii) that the respective hoardings had been erected either with the licence/permission/lease, as the case may be, granted by the authorities concerned. The said writ petition was resisted by the second respondent/Corporation for the reasons that were stated in the impugned orders itself as referred to above. 2. Learned single Judge by an order dated 13-12-2000 finding that the appellant/writ petitioner even though was served with the show cause notice to prove that i) that the said hoardings were in existence on or before 23-7-1998 and the petitioner filed application for regularisation of the same on or before 2-12-1998 to the Corporation of Chennai; ii) that they obtained stay order from the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and iii) that the respective hoardings had been erected either with the licence/permission/lease, as the case may be, granted by the authorities concerned, referred to above, and also was given a hearing on 17-11-2000, had not substantiated its case and, therefore, refused to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, the writ appeal. 3. Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner brought to our notice that out of the two hoardings, one was already removed by the second respondent/Corporation immediately after dismissal of the writ petition and there is only one hoarding now, which was erected at Y.M.C.A., Nandanam having measurement of 100 feet length and 25 feet height. According to Mr. According to Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, even though the second respondent is empowered to remove the hoardings invoking the power under S. 326 J of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act 1919 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') unless there is a finding that the hoarding is hazardous and disturbance to the safe traffic movement, which, in turn, would adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic, the respondents cannot pass an order for removal of the hoardings. 4. Per contra, Mrs. P. Bhagyalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Corporation contends that as per amendment of Section 326-J of the Act, the District Collector is a competent authority to go into the aspect in view of the Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 2003, but not the Commissioner. However, she is not in a position to satisfy us as to whether the second respondent/Corporation has satisfied himself that the impugned hoarding is hazardous and disturbance to the safe traffic movement, which would adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic. 5. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 6. However, she is not in a position to satisfy us as to whether the second respondent/Corporation has satisfied himself that the impugned hoarding is hazardous and disturbance to the safe traffic movement, which would adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic. 5. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 6. It is true that Section 326-J of the Act after the amendment, empowers the District Collector to remove the hoarding visible to the traffic on the road, if the same is hazardous and disturbance to the safe traffic movement, so as to adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic, which shall be done after due notice in writing before ordering the removal of such hoarding, as provided under Section 326-J of the Act, which reads as follows : Section 326-J. Prohibition of erection of certain hoardings - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority - (a) (i) Where any hoarding (other than traffic sign and road sign) visible to the traffic on the road is hazardous and disturbance to the safe traffic movement, so as to adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic and which is in existence immediately before the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2000 (hereafter in this section referred to as the amendment Act), the District Collector shall by notice in writing, require the licensee or any person in possession, of such hoarding, to remove such hoarding within such time as may be specified in the notice : Provided that such time shall not exceed fifteen days from the date of issue of such notice; (ii) xxxxx (b)(i) xxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxx (Emphasis supplied) 7. The Apex Court in P. Narayana Bhat v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 554 : ( AIR 2001 SC 1736 ) while interpreting the powers of the authorities concerned under Section 326-J of the Act held as follows : "...... 8. The Apex Court in P. Narayana Bhat v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 554 : ( AIR 2001 SC 1736 ) while interpreting the powers of the authorities concerned under Section 326-J of the Act held as follows : "...... 8. A plain reading of this section shows that the authorities concerned are empowered either to refuse to grant licence/renewal or to remove the existing hoardings only if the same is hazardous and is a disturbance to safe traffic movement which, in turn, should adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic. Unless these impediments are present in the hoardings, merely because the said hoardings are visible to the traffic, cannot be a ground for either refusing the grant/renewal of licence." (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the instant case, the second respondent/Corporation even though has stated that the appellant/writ petitioner failed to prove (i) that the said hoardings were in existence on or before 23-7-1998 and the petitioner filed application for regularisation of the same on or before 2-12-1998 to the Corporation of Chennai; (ii) that they obtained stay order from the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and (iii) that the respective hoardings had been erected either with the licence/permission/lease, as the case may be, granted by the authorities concerned, referred to above, has not arrived at any finding as to whether the impugned hoarding is hazardous and disturbance to safe traffic movement which, in turn, should adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic. Unless these impediments are present in the impugned case, merely because the said hoardings are visible to the traffic, cannot be a ground for either refuse the grant or renewal or removal of the same as held by the Apex Court in P. Narayana Bhat's case ( AIR 2001 SC 1736 ). 9. Unless these impediments are present in the impugned case, merely because the said hoardings are visible to the traffic, cannot be a ground for either refuse the grant or renewal or removal of the same as held by the Apex Court in P. Narayana Bhat's case ( AIR 2001 SC 1736 ). 9. Since all the hoardings of the appellant/writ petitioner are concededly removed except the one, referred to above, which is at Y.M.C.A., Nandanam and it is impossible and impracticable to direct the respondents to issue a show cause notice to arrive at the finding whether the impugned hoarding is hazardous and disturbance to safe traffic movement which, in turn, should adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic, suffice it to set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 13-12-2000 and direct the respondents to forward the papers to the District Collector, Chennai to issue a fresh notice to the appellant/writ petitioner to explain their case before passing an order of removal and arrive at the finding whether the impugned hoarding is hazardous and disturbance to safe traffic movement which, in turn, would adversely affect free and safe flow of traffic and pass orders in accordance with law. Till then the second respondent/Corporation as well as the District Collector, Chennai shall not remove the hoarding at Y.M.C.A., Nandanam. The writ appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs.