Judgment :- A.P. SHAH, C.J. W.P. Nos. 7143 of 2006 and 24154 of 2003 are filed in public interest, seeking inter alia, the issuance of appropriate writs, orders or directions to the respondents for the purpose of securing the removal of hoardings which continue to be erected and displayed unlawfully upon the public places and public lands in the city of Chennai. The grievance of the petitioners is that thousands of hoardings are erected on public lands, on the roadsides, on the pavements and platforms, and these hoardings are not only hazardous to traffic but also to public, since the pedestrians are compelled to walk on the roads facing risk to their lives. The State Exchequer is also losing revenue, since the owners of those hoardings are not paying any ground rent or advertisement tax. As a result, the Government is losing its revenue to the tune of Rs. 40 to 50 crores every year. It is also highlighted that almost all political parties in and around the city of Chennai are erecting innumerable hoardings all around the city. There are number of specifications for the erection of such hoardings within the limits of the Corporation, but none of the political parties seem to follow the rules and regulations and the Corporation of Chennai is also not taking any measure either to regulate such hoardings or to collect the fees. It is contended that there was a complete failure on the part of the law enforcing agencies, statutorily vested with regulatory powers to discharge their duties in accordance with law. 2. W.P. No. 19056of 2003 and other companion petitions in the batch are preferred by the hoarding owners, or as the case may be, by persons claiming to be entitled to assert a right to erect hoardings in public as well as private places questioning the validity of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 2003 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the rules’ for short). Broadly speaking, the contention of the petitioners is that the rules are arbitrary and impose unreasonable restrictions and thus, violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(l)(a) and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. 3. Beforedealing with the grievances and contentions of the parties, it is necessary to narrate the necessary facts in a nutshell to appreciate the controversy raised in the petitions. 4. 3. Beforedealing with the grievances and contentions of the parties, it is necessary to narrate the necessary facts in a nutshell to appreciate the controversy raised in the petitions. 4. It appears that since 1970 the hoardings were permitted to be erected by individuals or companies in public places on the basis of the Board Standing Orders and G.Os. issued by the State Government from time to time. In June 1979, when the Government decided to remove all the hoardings for the purpose of auctioning the sites, some of the hoarding owners filed writ petitions to restrain the authorities from removing the hoardings. They were disposed of on 25.1.1980 after recording the statement of the authorities that the hoardings would not be demolished or removed except in accordance with law. It appears that thereafter the authorities decided not to renew the existing leases for erecting the hoardings. When the Municipal Corporation threatened to remove the hoardings for nonpayment of tax as prescribed under the Chen-nai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), another batch of writ petitions was filed on the basis of the promise made by the authorities in the earlier batch of writ petitions not to remove the hoardings. 5. At this stage, the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Hoardings Act, 1985 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Acquisition Act’ for short) came to be passed providing for acquisition of hoardings in public as well as private places. In view of the enactment of the said Act, the batch of writ petitions challenging the action of Chennai Corporation filed earlier was withdrawn and another batch of writ petitions was filed challenging the said Act itself. The Division Bench in Key Centre & others v. Hoardings, Collectorate Key Centre & others v. Hoardings, Collectorate Key Centre & others v. Hoardings, Collectorate 1996 Writ L.R. 765, upheld the Validity of the Acquisition Act, in so far as its applicability to public places is concerned and further held that the words “private places” and “public places” shall have the same meaning as given to them in Section 3(h) and (i) of the Acquisition Act respectively. The aggrieved parties then filed appeals before the Supreme Court. The aggrieved parties then filed appeals before the Supreme Court. While the appeals were so pending before the Supreme Court, Tamil Nadu Ordinance 2 of 1998 was promulgated to amend the laws relating to Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in the State of Tamil Nadu in so far as it relates to the regulation of erection of hoardings. The said Ordinance was promulgated with a view to regulate the erection of hoardings on the roadside and over the buildings of the city of Chennai and in other urban areas of Chennai without proper licence. By the said Ordinance, certain provisions have been inserted in the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 and the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981. The amendments made in the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 are made applicable to the newly created Corporations of Tiruchirappalli, Tirunelveli and Salem also. By inserting the new provisions under the said Acts, the Legislature has given power to the local bodies to regulate hoardings by issuance of licence. The Ordinance subsequently was replaced by Act 51 of 1998. The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules were framed and notified on 11.10.1998. Further amendment was introduced to the laws relating to the hoardings in the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in the State of Tamil Nadu by enacting Act 26 of 2000. The presidential assent was obtained on 5.9.2000 under Article 201 of the Constitution of India. 6. A fresh batch of writ petitions was filed challenging the provisions of the Act of 1998 and the proceedings of the authorities issued under the Act. We may also mention that a Public Interest Litigation in W.P. No. 10747 of 1996 was also filed on the ground that there is mushroom growth of hoardings without any authorisation which are not only causing threat to traffic but also to human life, during cyclone, etc. and they should not be allowed to exist by regularising the same under the Act 51 of 1998. and they should not be allowed to exist by regularising the same under the Act 51 of 1998. The grievance of the petitioners in the said writ petition was that though in the earlier proceedings, only 598 hoardings were identified as on 10.7.1985, subsequently in spite of the directions issued by this Court and undertakings given to remove the unauthorised hoardings, which were erected without obtaining permission from the concerned authorities with respect to the space concerned, the officials did not take any steps either to prevent or remove the same as observed by the Division Bench in Key Centre & others v. Hoardings, Collectorate Key Centre & others v. Hoardings, Collectorate Key Centre & others v. Hoardings, Collectorate (supra). 7. In Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State 2001 (2) CTC 103 , all the writ petitions filed by the hoarding owners came to be dismissed. The Division Bench rejected the contentions of the hoarding owners holding: • i. that the writ petitions are not maintainable on behalf of the Association of Hoarding Owners since such associations had no fundamental right which could be enforced in a Court of law; • ii. that the petitioners before it were only the owners of the hoardings and not advertisers, therefore, they could not claim any fundamental right under Article 19(l)(a); • iii. that no guidelines were necessary in the exercise of the power to remove the hoardings under Section 326(J) in view of the interpretation given by it to the said Section; • iv. the applications for licences had to be filed within one month period given by the Commissioner by means of an advertisement and such period could not be extended. 8. The hoarding owners carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the very same grounds were urged and the Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench that the provisions of the Act are neither ultra vires of Article 14 nor Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution. The Court, however, noted that the Division Bench was not right in directing the authorities to remove all the hoardings simply because they are visible to traffic. The Court, however, noted that the Division Bench was not right in directing the authorities to remove all the hoardings simply because they are visible to traffic. It was held that a plain reading of Section 326(J) of the Act 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 disturbance to safe traffic movement, which in turn, would 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. Further, the Court opined that in the facts and circumstances of the case, to comply with the principles of natural justice, there is a need to grant some reasonable time to the hoarding owners to make necessary applications for the grant/renewal of the licence as contemplated under the Act and consequently modified the conclusions and directions issued by the High Court in para 93 of the judgment as follows: • (1) We hold that the provisions of Act 51 of 1998 and Act 2 of 2000 are valid and intra vires of the Constitution. The persons desirous of obtaining a hoarding licence under the Act be given 30 days’ time from today to make the necessary application in the prescribed form and on payment of the prescribed fee and on such applications being filed, the licensing authority shall consider the same in accordance with Section 326(J) of the Act, as interpreted by us. • (2) If no application for grant of licence is received within 30 days as stipulated by us hereinabove by any owner of the existing hoarding, the same shall be removed without further notice and also if the application for grant of licence is rejected in accordance with law, the necessary consequences contemplated under the Act will follow. It is reported that by the subsequent order, the Supreme Court extended the time to make applications till 15.6.2001. 9. In 2003, the State Government replaced the Advertisement Tax Rules, 1998 by framing the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 2003. These rules were brought into force with effect from 26.6.2003. 10. 9. In 2003, the State Government replaced the Advertisement Tax Rules, 1998 by framing the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 2003. These rules were brought into force with effect from 26.6.2003. 10. The learned senior counsel Mr.R. Krishnamurthy, Mr.B.S. Gnanadesikan, Mr.G.R. Lakshmanan, Mr.K.M. Vijayan, Mr.R. Vijay Narayan made their submissions on behalf of the hoarding owners and Mr.T. Mohan and Mr.S.R. Sundaram made their submissions on behalf of the petitioners in the PIL and Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader represented the State. 11. The submissions made by the hoarding owners may be summarised as follows: • (i) that the impugned rules impose unreasonable restrictions on petitioners’ right to erect hoardings and thus violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(l)(a) and 19(l) (g) of the Constitution and they are not made in public interest; • (ii) that the State Government ought to have framed separate rules for the hoardings in the public places and the hoardings in the private places and in any event Rule 3(iii), Rule 6(2) and Rule 9(1) of the impugned rules cannot be made applicable to the hoardings in private places; • (iii) that the impugned rules are not at all applicable to the hoardings which were erected before the cut-off date, i.e. 23.7.1998 and in any event the requirement of production of No Objection Certificate from a Police Officer cannot be insisted in respect of the hoardings erected prior to the cut off date, i.e. 23.7.1998; • (iv) that rule 6 which prescribes maximum size of hoarding is unreasonable inasmuch as any effort to curtail the space available for advertisement would amount to indirect interference with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(l)(a) and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. If only the hoardings erected physically affect the traffic which will be a disturbance to safe traffic movement then alone Section 326(J) of the Act can be applied; and • (v) that Rule 10 of the Rules is liable to be struck down as arbitrary, vague and unworkable and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution. 12. Before adverting to the submissions made at the Bar, it will be necessary to briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules. 12. Before adverting to the submissions made at the Bar, it will be necessary to briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules. Section 326-A defines “hoarding” to mean any screen of boards at any place, whether public or private, used or intended to be used for exhibiting advertisement, including the frame work or other support, erected, wholly or in part upon or over any land, building, wall or structure, visible to public wholly or partly. Section 326-B lays down that no hoarding shall be erected at any place, on or after 23.7.1998 by any person without obtaining a licence from the District Collector. Section 326-C provides for procedure for application of licence. Section 326-CC prescribes tax on advertisement on hoardings and enumerates minimum and maximum tax on the hoardings. Section 326-D empowers the District Collector to cancel or suspend the licence when such a licence has been obtained by fraud or the licensee has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules or any of the conditions subject to which the licence was granted. Section 326-E in no uncertain terms lays down that any hoarding erected without a licence shall be confiscated and removed by the District Collector without giving any notice. Section 326-H provides for an appeal to the State Government from an order of refusal to grant or renew a licence or cancelling or suspending a licence by the District Collector. Section 326-J prohibits any hoarding (other than traffic sign and road sign) visible to the traffic on the road which is hazardous and disturbance to the safe traffic movement and provides further that any such hoarding which is erected before the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2000 shall be removed after giving a notice to the licensee or any person in possession of such hoarding. 13. The impugned rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 347 of the Act and in supersession of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 1998. 13. The impugned rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 347 of the Act and in supersession of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 1998. Rule 2(b) of the Rules defines “advertisement” to mean any information exhibited on any screen or board, wall or building either private or public or any hoarding erected on any private or public land or building or on any frame work or other support wholly or in part over any private or public land or building visible to public wholly or partly and will exclude advertisements made in newspapers, broadcast made over radio or telecast in television. Rule 3 lays down that every application for a licence to erect a hoarding shall be made to the District Collector in Form I and shall contain, (i) a plan of the hoarding to be erected indicating the height and other dimensions and the material proposed to be used as approved by a qualified Engineer; (ii) a No Objection Certificate from the owner of the tend where the hoarding is to be erected in a private land or building or a No Objection Certificate from the State or Central Government or a No Objection Certificate from the Commissioner of the Corporation as the case may be; (iii) a No Objection Certificate from a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police that the proposed hoarding would not be an obstruction to free and safe movement of traffic, pedestrians and vehicles; and (iv) a topo sketch indicating the proposed location of the hoarding. As per rule 4, the validity of licence shall be for three years and rule 5 provides for renewal of licence. 14. Rule 6 prescribes the maximum size of a hoarding and reads as follows: 6. Maximum size of hoarding.- (1) The maximum size of a hoarding to be erected shall be,- Road width Maximum size Above 100 feet 24 feet x 12 feet (horizontal position) Between 50-100 feet 15 feet x 10 feet (horizontal position) Less than 50 feet 12 feet x 6 feet (either horizontal or vertical) (2) The maximum height of hoarding including the height from the ground level of hoarding shall not exceed thirty feet. The hoarding erected in one particular road must be of uniform size as practicable as possible. The hoarding erected in one particular road must be of uniform size as practicable as possible. (3) No hoarding shall be permitted on both sides of the roads with a footpath of less than ten feet width. In roads with no separate footpath, a minimum of ten feet width shall be available between the road margin and the hoarding for use of pedestrians. (4) The hoarding shall be erected only parallel to the footpath or road, and not across the footpath or road margin. (5) Thehoarding irrespective of the size shall be erected on steel frames. (6) There shall be a gap of not less than five feet width between one hoarding and another. The gap between hoardings in a road may be of uniform length. 15. Rule 7provides for collection of rent for erection of hoarding on Government or Municipal Land. Rule 8 gives power to the District Collector to cancel the licence if he has reason to believe that a licensee has violated or failed to comply with the conditions of the licence or any provision of the Act or the rules. By Rule 9, the District Collector is empowered to remove unauthorised, obscene or objectionable hoardings. 16. Rule 10 places restriction on grant of licence in certain places, which reads as follows: 10. Restriction on grant of licence: Licence shall not be granted for erection of hoarding in the following place, namely: • i. in front of educational institutions, popular places of worship and hospitals with inpatient treatment facility; • ii. in the corners of road or street junctions, upto a distance of 100 metres on either sides of the junction; and • iii. in front of places of historical or aesthetic importance. Rule 13 provides for advertisement tax on advertisement exhibited on hoardings. 17. It appears that at the time when this Court considered the first batch of writ petitions in Key Centre & others v. Hoardings, Collectorate Key Centre & others v. Hoardings, Collectorate Key Centre & others v. Hoardings, Collectorate (supra) only 598 hoardings were noticed and thereafter, in spite of the specific ban provided under the Act as well as the interim directions given by this Court, large number of hoardings have been erected all over the city of Chennai. Even in the decision in Key Centre, etc and Others the learned Judges have expressed concern about the haphazard growth of hoardings and observed as follows: “…..In fact, it is a matter of argument by Mr. Sriram Panchu on behalf of one of the petitioners, that an area meant for preserving greenery by the Agricultural Department opposite to the Gemini Flyover has been completely blocked from the view of the public by huge advertisement hoardings. In fact some of the local areas cannot at all be recognized because of the familiar buildings by which the places are recognized, are blocked by huge advertisement Boards. Just opposite to the High Court in front of the Bar Council Office there is an advertisement board which is placed across the pavement, causing nuisance to the traffic and the pedestrians. If one goes down the Nungambakkam Bridge towards Poonamalle High Road, one can see a long advertisement board which must be about 300 feet in length. It is not known whether such a huge advertisement hoarding has been permitted by the authorities or it is an unauthorized hoarding, we are only trying to point out that public places are being utilized for erection of hoarding, indiscriminately without due regard to traffic requirements and public order. It goes without saying that in the matter of using public places for putting up hoardings for advertisement there must be certain restrictions imposed by the Government…… that some of the landmark buildings have been obscured by huge advertisement hoardings erected in front of them, mainly on public roads. We are not even worried about the obscene advertisements, mostly by film producers and Cinema theatres, which can be taken care of by appropriate existing legislation, but we are worried about the size and location of the innumerable hoardings simply spoiling the aesthetic beauty of the City and some of the modern buildings which have built artistically with the help of architectural experts….”. It is obvious that the haphazard growth of hoardings causes great nuisance to the public at large especially from the traffic point of view. 18. It is obvious that the haphazard growth of hoardings causes great nuisance to the public at large especially from the traffic point of view. 18. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited AIR 2002 SC 1638 : 2002 (4) SCC 219 , the Supreme Court while construing the similar provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1883 held as follows: “The main and salutary purpose is to regulate the installation/construction of signboards of the nature defined and envisaged therein to keep road margins and space above such margins not indiscriminately meddled with so as to affect the free movement and free flow of traffic, preserve the ecology and environment by averting and regulation to the extent required, ensuring, in public interest, adverse physiological and psychological impacts either directly or indirectly due to the use of neon lights/illuminations used for the installations. The provision for licensing is incidental and necessarily required to properly and effectively enforce the regulations and the levy and collection of fee also ultimately seem to achieve the same purpose. The statutory provisions seem to have been thus enacted with a laudable public purpose and the definition is also not only inclusive in nature but the enumeration of the various nature of fixtures, the manner and methods adopted therefor, as also the obvious and ostensible object of such fixtures/installations found specified therein, under the scheme of things, are found to be with the intention of making the provision an all-inclusive one to cover or rope in all possible things and not to operate in a manner to bring about any limitation on their scope, and that too to render the very provision otiose, redundant and meaningless”. 19. In considering the validity of the impugned rules, this Court must, therefore, be guided by the salutary public purpose underlying these regulatory provisions which was emphasized in the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has emphasized the fact that the provisions for licensing is incidental and, is necessarily required to properly and effectively enforce the regulations. The levy and collection of a fee is with the object of achieving the same purpose. The Supreme Court has emphasized the fact that the provisions for licensing is incidental and, is necessarily required to properly and effectively enforce the regulations. The levy and collection of a fee is with the object of achieving the same purpose. The attack on the rules based on Article 19(l)(a) cannot be accepted as this Court in Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State (supra) concluded that the hoarding owners cannot claim any right under Article 19(l)(a) merely because the hoardings are being used as base for their advertisements. It is undoubtedly true that the petitioners’ right to carry business is protected by Article 19(l)(g). However, the right conferred by Clause (1 )(g) is not an absolute right but one which is liable to be restricted under Clause 6 in the interest of general public, an expression which is a very wide one and will include all matters affecting public weal, such as public safety, public health, public morals, etc. The short question is whether the restrictions imposed by the impugned rules can be said to be unreasonable or ultra vires. 20. We may mention at the outset that the learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that Rule 6 (2), which restricts the height of hoarding to 30 feet, will not be applicable where the hoarding is erected on the terrace of a building. The learned Government Pleader also conceded that the provision contained in Rule 3(iii) of the Rules for production of a No Objection Certificate from a Police Officer would not apply to the hoardings erected prior to the cut-off date, i.e. 23.7.1998. Coming then to the first submission made on behalf of the hoarding owners that the impugned rules will not apply to the hoardings which were erected prior to 2003 is to be stated only to be rejected. In Narayana Bhat v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Supreme Court rejected the appeals filed by the hoarding owners and granted 30 days’ time to the existing hoarding owners to make an application. The Supreme Court further directed that if the application is not made within the stipulated time, such hoarding shall be liable to be removed. In Narayana Bhat v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Supreme Court rejected the appeals filed by the hoarding owners and granted 30 days’ time to the existing hoarding owners to make an application. The Supreme Court further directed that if the application is not made within the stipulated time, such hoarding shall be liable to be removed. The petitioners have preferred applications pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court and it is not open to them to challenge the applicability of the rules which are framed by the State Government and any hoarding which is not in conformity with the rules shall be liable to be removed as unauthorised. 21. We are also not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel that there should be separate rules for hoardings in private places and hoardings in public places. In fact, this very argument was rejected by the Division Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State Tamil Nadu Outdoor Advertising Association v. State (supra). It was argued before the Division Bench that the hoardings erected in the private land cannot be treated as equal to the hoardings erected in the public place. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench in Key Centre and Others v. Authorised Officer, Hoardings Key Centre and Others v. Authorised Officer, Hoardings Key Centre and Others v. Authorised Officer, Hoardings (supra). The Division Bench expressly rejected this contention and held as follows: “86. The submission of the learned senior counsel cannot be accepted on the basis that the learned Judges in the said decision have treated both the hoardings differently. In the said decision, the conclusion was made on the basis of the rights of the parties and not on the basis of the hoardings, as the said Act was enacted to acquire the hoardings. But the present provisions are only to regulate the hoardings, by issuing licence. The division bench, itself has observed that such regulations are necessary. While regulating the hoardings, all the hoardings either in the public place or in the private place are one and the same, and the question of differentiating the said hoardings will not arise. Though he tried to submit that private hoardings will not come under the impugned provisions, he is not in a position to substantiate the same.” 22. While regulating the hoardings, all the hoardings either in the public place or in the private place are one and the same, and the question of differentiating the said hoardings will not arise. Though he tried to submit that private hoardings will not come under the impugned provisions, he is not in a position to substantiate the same.” 22. The learned counsel appearing for the hoarding owners in the private places also took objection to the requirement of obtaining No Objection Certificate under Rule 3(iii) of the rules. It is argued that this provision would not apply to a hoarding erected in the building in a private place since there is no possibility of any hazard to the traffic in respect of a hoarding erected in a private place, land or building. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The hoarding erected in a private building or in a private land can also distract the attention of the drivers and thus affect the smooth flow of traffic and, therefore, this submission is also liable to be rejected. As far as the size of the hoarding is concerned, in our opinion, the maximum size which is prescribed under the rules is reasonable and the provision cannot be said to be putting any unreasonable restriction on the rights of the hoarding owners to put advertisement on their hoardings. The rule making authority is also justified in prescribing the size of the hoarding depending upon the width of the road. We do not find any illegality in this provision. 23. Coming then to the provision of Rule 10, the first ground of attack is that sub-rule (ii) of Rule 10 is totally unworkable inasmuch as there is no road or street junction in the city of Chennai where a distance of 100 metres is available on either side of the junction free of any road corner or street junction. Learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that this is a correct position as far as the city of Chennai is concerned. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the argument of the petitioners and confine the applicability of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 10 only to the corners of the road or street junctions. However, it is made clear that no hoarding shall be permitted within the distance of 100 metres unless it is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules. However, it is made clear that no hoarding shall be permitted within the distance of 100 metres unless it is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules. The next ground of attack is that the rule making authority has not defined the places of historical importance or aesthetic value or popular places of worship. It is argued that in the absence of any such definition, the operation of the rule would be totally unworkable. We find absolutely no merit in the submission. The places of historical importance or aesthetic value are associated with great historical events, personalities, movements or institutions. They have been and are the prime landmarks of the city possessing special architectural or aesthetical merit, cultural or historical value, contributing to the image and identity of the city. The rules are intended to preserve, protect and conserve rich socio-economic and cultural heritage of the city of Chennai, which is known for its history. The object of the rules is to preserve the structures and monuments which have given to the city its unique position and status. In Ramsharan Autyanuprasi and Another v. Union of India and Others Ramsharan Autyanuprasi and Another v. Union of India and Others Ramsharan Autyanuprasi and Another v. Union of India and Others AIR 1989 SC 549 : 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251, the Supreme Court has held that “Life in its expanded horizons today includes all that gives meaning to a mans life including his tradition, culture and heritage and protection of the heritage in its full measure would certainly come within the compass of an expanded concept of Article 21 of the Constitution.” Article 48-A of the Constitution, which is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. The dimensions of the environment for the purposes of Article 48-A must be informed by abroad construction of that expression. Under Article 51-A(f), it is the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. We do not find any unreasonableness in the provision. In fact, the Corporation has already prepared a list of places of historical importance, copy of which is produced before us and placed on record. Under Article 51-A(f), it is the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. We do not find any unreasonableness in the provision. In fact, the Corporation has already prepared a list of places of historical importance, copy of which is produced before us and placed on record. We are also inclined to appoint a Committee of Experts for the purpose of enlisting the places of historical importance and aesthetic value and popular places of worship. 24. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned rules framed by the State Government, except as indicated above, are perfectly valid and legal and there is no infirmity in the rules. 25. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in PILs submitted that hoardings have been erected unlawfully at more than 1000 public sites or public lands belonging to the Corporation of Chennai, Public Works Department, Highways and other Government agencies. The hoardings are also erected on the roadsides and on the pavements and platforms. The learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court has clearly held that any hoarding erected on a public land is hazardous and disturbance to the safe traffic movement which in turn would adversely affect the free and safe flow of traffic. Learned counsel also brought to our notice that the political parties have erected innumerable hoardings all over the city and neither the District Collector nor the Commissioner is taking any measure either to regulate such hoardings or to collect the necessary fees as per the rules. There cannot be any grievance against any political parties when they publish their advertisement to popularise their ideals among the general public by spending their own money. But it seems that at present the hoardings are being erected by the political parties without getting permission and without paying the prescribed fees. It is rightly argued before us that the political parties which publish their ideals through such unauthorised hoardings at the cost of the public money cause great injustice to the general public. It is submitted that the major points of junctions are occupied by the hoardings erected by the political parties and in some cases such hoardings are obviously causing diversion of attention of road users especially the pedestrians and two wheelers etc. It is submitted that the major points of junctions are occupied by the hoardings erected by the political parties and in some cases such hoardings are obviously causing diversion of attention of road users especially the pedestrians and two wheelers etc. It is submitted since the ruling party has erected as many hoardings in and around the Chennai Corporation area, the officials are hesitant to impose any fees or forbid such hoardings. Hence, the other political parties also take advantage of this situation and erect their party hoardings. It is submitted that at present more than 10000 such hoardings are erected in and around the city of Chennai causing severe hardship and inconvenience to the general public. It is, therefore, necessary to issue appropriate directions to remove all the unauthorised hoardings in and around the city of Chennai which are not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 26. In the result, in view of the foregoing discussion,, we pass the following order. • 1) W.P. No. 19056 of 2003 and batch of writ petitions filed by the hoarding owners are hereby dismissed. • 2) A Committeeis hereby constituted for identifying and enumerating the places of historical importance or aesthetic value and popular places of worship in and around the city of Chennai. The Committee shall also oversee the operation of the removal of the illegal and unauthorised hoardings in the city of Chennai. • 3) The Committee shall be headed by JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN (retired) who shall be Chairperson and shall consist of (i) Ms.K. Kalpana, Restoration Architect, (ii) Mr.S. Muthiah, Historian (iii) the Commissioner of Chennai Municipal Corporation or his nominee, not below the rank of the Deputy Commissioner; (iv) the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, his or her nominee, not below the rank of the Joint Commissioner and (v) the District Collector. The Committee will have the assistance of the Zonal Commissioners/Officers. The Committee shall complete the work of identifying and enlisting the places of historical importance or aesthetic value and popular places of worship, expeditiously, and preferably within six weeks. The Committee shall also submit its report to this Court on the status of the removal of illegal and unauthorized hoardings. • 4) The State Government is directed to provide necessary infrastructure and office to the Committee in the premises of the Municipal Corporation with adequate staff. The Committee shall also submit its report to this Court on the status of the removal of illegal and unauthorized hoardings. • 4) The State Government is directed to provide necessary infrastructure and office to the Committee in the premises of the Municipal Corporation with adequate staff. • 5) The District Collector is directed to remove and demolish all the unauthorised hoardings, which have been erected after the cut-off date and in respect of which no application have been made to the District Collector, within a period of eight weeks. The District Collector and the Tahsildar working in their respective zones shall be personally responsible for the removal of the unauthorised hoardings in their respective areas. • 6) The Municipal Commissioner shall extend all the necessary co-operation to the District Collector for removal of the hoardings in the city. The Commissioner is directed to supply to the District Collector the necessary equipments and the work force for the purpose of removal of the unauthorised hoardings. • 7) ThePolice Commissioner is directed to provide adequate police force to assist the demolition teams and to ensure that each police station in and around the city of Chennai extend full cooperation to the demolition teams for the purpose of removal and demolition of the unauthorised hoardings. • 8) The State Government is directed to appoint two officers not below the rank of the District Collector as Special Officers vested with necessary power of the District Collector to make scrutiny of the applications pending before the Collector within a period of four weeks from today. The Special Officers shall complete the scrutiny of all the applications and pass final orders in accordance with law within four months from today. It is needless to say that no licence shall be granted and/or renewed in respect of any hoarding which is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. • 9) As far as the applications, which are preferred by the existing hoarding owners, the District Collector/Special Officer shall call for the views of the traffic police and such views shall be communicated to the District Collector/Special Officer within a period of four weeks. • 9) As far as the applications, which are preferred by the existing hoarding owners, the District Collector/Special Officer shall call for the views of the traffic police and such views shall be communicated to the District Collector/Special Officer within a period of four weeks. All the hoardings where the applications/appeals are dismissed by the authorities, shall be liable to be removed forthwith and the concerned authorities, viz., the District Collector/Commissioner of Corporation and the Police Commissioner shall take appropriate steps for the purpose of removal of such hoardings. • 10) The District Collector and the Tahsildars are directed to take immediate steps for recovery of the advertisement tax, the rent and the penalties from the hoarding owners whether authorised or unauthorised. • 11) For the purpose, of removal of such hoardings, the District Collector/Commissioner etc. are free to engage private contractors. • 12) Every appeal preferred from the decision of the District Collector/Special Officer shall be disposed of within a period of sixty days as prescribed by the rules and for that purpose, the Government may consider exclusive appointment of one or more officers at the Secretariat level. • 13) In so far as the new applications are concerned, if the applicant has already constructed a hoarding, in such case, the hoarding shall be liable to be removed and demolished and the applicant shall be entitled to apply only after such removal and demolition of the hoarding. • 14) In so far as Rule 3(i) is concerned, the plan of the hoarding shall be approved by a qualified structural Engineer. • 15) In case of non-removal of unauthorized or illegal hoardings and default in payment of rent and tax, the District Collector shall initiate prosecution against the hoarding owners in accordance with Section 326(f) of the Act. • 16) The District Collector is hereby directed to demolish/remove all the hoardings forthwith, erected on or in front of any places of historical or aesthetical importance and popular places of worship as enlisted by the Committee as well as on or in front of educational institutions and hospitals, and in cases where applications have been made by any such hoarding owners within the time prescribed by the Supreme Court, such applications shall be decided with priority and the hoardings found to be illegal shall be removed forthwith without further notice. • 17) No civil Court shall entertain any application against the demolition or removal of the unauthorised hoardings and the writ petitions, if any, filed in this Court challenging such demolition shall be placed by the Registry before the First Bench. • 18) The directions given by this Court shall prevail notwithstanding any order already passed by the civil Court in any matter. Hearing of Writ Petition Nos. 7143 of 2006 and 24154 of 2003 is fixed as 11.10.2006 High on Board.