JUDGMENT S. J. MUKHOPADHA Y A, C.J.- In all these appeals as common questions of law are involved and a common judgment and order dated 15th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The questions involved in these cases are: (i) Whether the respondent-Rajkot Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') has jurisdiction to prohibit a person from erecting hoardings on the top of private houses or on their walls, lands, etc.? and (ii) Whether removal of hoardings in the case of the appellants need to be preceded by a show-cause notice from the Corporation? 3. For determination of the issues, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one as mentioned hereunder : 4. Before the learned Single Judge the appellants pleaded that they paid the licence-fee for erection of hoardings to the Corporation, which was duly received by the Corporation upto the accounting period years 2008-2009, and the receipts have already been issued. In the beginning of January, 2009, the Corporation started large-scale demolition of hoardings, arbitrarily and illegally, without issuing any show-cause notice, without hearing the appellants and without following the due process of law. 5. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment while held that proper notices were served on the appellants before demolition of their hoardings, also held that none of the appellants applied for any permission/licence as contemplated under Regulation No. 21, and thereby, they are not entitled for relief and dismissed the writ petitions. 6. Mr. S. B. Vakil, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, while challenging the common judgment would contend that : (i) No proper notice of show-cause was given asking the appellants as to why their respective hoardings be not demolished; before demolishing the hoardings none of the appellants were given any hearing; and the Corporation ought to have given a reasonable and sufficient time to remove their respective hoardings. (ii) The action of the Corporation is unreasonable, arbitrary, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of the principles of natural justice. (ii) The action of the Corporation is unreasonable, arbitrary, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of the principles of natural justice. (iii) The Revised Development Plan and General Development Control Regulations stipulated under the Revised Draft General Development Control Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Development Control Regulations') framed by the Rajkot Urban Development Authority, Rajkot, have not been sanctioned by the State Government as required under Sec. 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Town Planning Act'). Thereby, the decision to remove the hoardings and to demolish the same on the ground that they are against the provisions of the 'Development Control Regulations' is bad in law. 7. He would further contend that the State Government or its authorities or the Corporation could not show that any notification under Sec. 17 of the Town Planning Act has been issued to suggest that the 'Development Control Regulations' have been approved. In absence of such approval, the Corporation cannot rely on 'Development Control Regulations'. 8. Per contra, according to Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, the appellants having installed huge/big size hoardings on the roof-top of private buildings, private places, etc., and such hoardings being against public interest and the provisions made under the 'Development Control Regulations', notices were issued to them, and after hearing, the hoardings were demolished. He would further contend that in absence of any specific permission, in fact, no notice was required to be issued on the appellants. 9. To decide the issue, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of law, pleadings made by the parties, other records and the decisions referred to by the parties, as discussed hereunder : 10. Section 245 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.P.M.C. Act') deals with the 'Regulation and control of advertisements'. As per sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 245, no person, without the written permission of the Commissioner of a Corporation, can erect any hoardings, structures, etc. upon such land, building, wall, hoarding or structure, etc. Whether any advertisement hoarding is erected on any building, wall or land in contravention of the said provision, under sub-sec. As per sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 245, no person, without the written permission of the Commissioner of a Corporation, can erect any hoardings, structures, etc. upon such land, building, wall, hoarding or structure, etc. Whether any advertisement hoarding is erected on any building, wall or land in contravention of the said provision, under sub-sec. (2) to Sec. 245, the owner or the person in occupation of such building or structure deemed to be a person who has erected such structure or hoarding or such illegal erection of hoardings, etc. contrary to the provisions of Sec. 245, or after the expiry of permission granted under sub-sec. (1), which attracts sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4, the Commissioner is required to issue notice in writing to the owner or occupier of the land, building, wall, hoarding to take down or remove the advertisement. Relevant provisions of Sec. 245 reads as follows : "245. Regulation and control of advertisements :- (1) No person shall, without the written permission of the Commissioner, erect, exhibit, fix or retain any advertisement upon such land, building, wall, hoarding or structure : Provided always that such permission shall not be necessary in respect of any advertisement which is not illuminated advertisement or a sly-sign and which- (a) is exhibited within the window of any building, or (b) relates to the trade or business carried on within the land or building upon which such advertisement is exhibited or to any sale or letting of such land or building or any effects therein, or to any sale, trade or business carried on by the owner of any omnibus or other vehicle upon which such advertisement is exhibited, or; (c) relates to the business of any railway company or; (d) is exhibited within any Railway station or upon any wall or property or a Railway administration not fronting any streets. (2) Where any advertisement shall be erected, exhibited, fixed or retained after three months from the enactment of this Section upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (2) Where any advertisement shall be erected, exhibited, fixed or retained after three months from the enactment of this Section upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) the owner or person in occupation of such land, building, wall, hoarding or structure shall be deemed to be the person who has erected, exhibited, fixed or retained such advertisement in contravention of the provisions of this Section, unless he proves that such contravention was committed by a person not in his employment or under his control or was committed without his connivance. (3) If any advertisement be erected, exhibited, fixed or retained contrary to the provisions of this Section or after the expiry of the permission granted under sub-sec. (1) the Commissioner may, by notice in writing, require the owner of occupier of the land, building, wall, hoarding or structure upon which the advertisement has been erected, exhibited, fixed or retained, to take down or remove the advertisement. (4) xxx xxx xxx" 11. General provisions regarding grant, suspension or revocation of licence and written permissions' by Corporation are provided under Sec. 386 of the B.P.M.C. Act. For the purpose of erection of hoardings on a building, land, etc., licence or written permission has to be obtained under the said provision. 12. From the document, it would be evident that the appellants erected large size hoardings of (a) 300' x 15' (b) 87' x 37' (c) 60' x 4' (d) 30' x 15' (e) 20' x 20', etc. large-scale hoardings are in the circles of the town or road side or above the building roof-top. 13. The case of the appellants is that the hoardings were placed in the area of Rajkot Municipal Corporation after obtaining permission for which they have applied for licence, and deposited requisite fee for which receipts have been granted, put there is nothing on record to show that the Corporation has given any permission in writing or has issued any licence in favour of one or other appellant. 14. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 15th January, 2010 held that none of the appellants have applied for any permission/licence as contemplated under Regulation No. 21.1. 14. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 15th January, 2010 held that none of the appellants have applied for any permission/licence as contemplated under Regulation No. 21.1. From the various correspondence took place, as referred to in the affidavit-in-reply, it was noticed that respective appellants were time and again informed to comply with the provisions of the 'Development Control Regulations', but none of the appellants complied with the same. 15. In the present case, a plea has been taken on behalf of the appellants that the 'Development Control Regulations' have not been approved by the State Government under Sec. 17 of the Town Planning Act. However, such fact has been disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. 16. It is not dispute that in exercise of powers conferred under clause (m) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 12 and sub-sec. (2)(e) of Sec. 13 of the Town Planning Act, Rajkot Urban Development Authority framed the 'Revised Draft General Development Control Regulations, 2001' of the Revised Draft Development Plan of Rajkot Urban Development Authority (including Rajkot Municipal Corporation area). Under Clause 1.1.2, the said Development Control Regulations, 2001 shall come into force on and from the date prescribed in the notification of the sanction of revised development. Sanction of the State Government is required to give effect to the Draft Development Plan under Sec. 17, whereunder the State Government can sanction the Draft Development Plan either with or without modification, or may return the Draft Development Plan and Regulations to the Area Development Authority for modifying the plan and the regulations in such manner as may direct. It may also refuse to accord sanction of the Draft Development Plan and the Regulations or authorize to prepare a fresh Development Plan under the provisions of the Act. 17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Rajkot Municipal Corporation referred. to a judgment of this Court in Outdoor Advertising Owners Association, Ahmedabad v. K. Kailashnathan, reported in 2006 (3) GLR 2362 . Therein, the Court noticed that the aforesaid Regulations 2001 have been sanctioned by the Government of Gujarat by Notification dated 20-12-2004 and published in the Official Gazette by Notifications dated 8th October, 2002 and 20th February, 2004 and a Corrigendum dated 15th April, 2004. 18. Therein, the Court noticed that the aforesaid Regulations 2001 have been sanctioned by the Government of Gujarat by Notification dated 20-12-2004 and published in the Official Gazette by Notifications dated 8th October, 2002 and 20th February, 2004 and a Corrigendum dated 15th April, 2004. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellants disputed the aforesaid fact and challenged such statement on the ground that they cannot produce such Notification, and on such challenge, the learned Senior Counsel for the Rajkot Municipal Corporation produced the Notification No. GH/V/24 of 2004/DVP-132001/2282-L dated 20th February, 2004, relevant portion of which reads as follows : "Notification Urban Development and Urban Housing Department Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar Dated 20th February, 2004 The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 No. GH/V/24 of 2004/DVP-132001/2282-L : WHEREAS the Rajkot Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the said Authority") has prepared and published a Revised Draft Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as "the said Revised Development Plan") in respect of the lands included within the said Authority limits, under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (President's Act No. 27 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") under Sec. 13(1) of the said Act. Notice regarding publication of the said Revised Development Plan and calling objections and suggestions on proposed Revised Draft Development Plan was published in the Part-II Miscellaneous and Advertisement section of the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 7th May, 1999; AND WHEREAS the said Authority published the modifications in the said Revised Development Plan by a notice under Sec. 15 of the said Act, inviting suggestions or objections from any person with respect to the proposed modifications in the Government Gazette, Part-II dated 24th January, 2000 and (Addendum) dated 9th February, 2000; AND WHEREAS, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 of the said Act, the Government of Gujarat had published the said modification under Government Notification, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department No. GH/V/141 of 2003/DVP-132001/2262-L dated 29th July, 2003 in Gujarat Government Extraordinary Gazetted Part IV - B dated 29th July, 2003 on Page Nos. 214-1 to 214-2 and State Government also published the Addendum to the above Notification of dated 29th July, 2003 in the Extraordinary Gazette, Part IV-B on dated 15th October, 2003 at Page Nos. 214-1 to 214-2 and State Government also published the Addendum to the above Notification of dated 29th July, 2003 in the Extraordinary Gazette, Part IV-B on dated 15th October, 2003 at Page Nos. 290-3 to 290-4 calling upon any person to submit suggestions or objections if any with respect to the proposed modifications to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in writing within a period of two months from the date of publication of the said Government Notifications 29th July, 2003 and dated 15th October, 2003; AND WHEREAS the State Government published the corrigendum to above notification of dated 29th July, 2003 in the Extraordinary Official Gazette, Part IV-B on dated 15th October, 2003 at Page Nos. 290-2 and 290-3. AND WHEREAS the Government of Gujarat has taken into consideration the suggestions and objections received by it in respect of the said modifications; NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 of the said Act, the Government of Gujarat, hereby.- (a) finalises the said modifications; (b) sanctions the said Revised Development Plan and the Regulations thereto subject to the modifications so finalized and as set out in the Schedule appended hereto; and (c) specifies the 6-3-2004 as the date on which the final Revised Development Plan shall come into force." 19. From the aforesaid facts, it will be evident that Development Control Regulations, 2001 and the Draft Development Plan have been sanctioned by the State Government, and thereby, the same is also binding on the parties. The aforesaid facts can be also ascertained from Resolution No. 1343 of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, relevant portion (English version) of which reads as follows : "Resolution No. 1343 : The G.D.C.R. of the Revised Development Scheme of the Authority is approved by the Government on 20-2-2004. And, it has come into force from 6-3-2004. Wherein in the Chapter 21 there are various provisions for hoarding. In the provision No. 21.2 the road width based different hoarding size (length/breadth etc.) are as provided herebelow : Road width range [in Mts.] Height of Hoarding [width] Maximum Length of Hoarding a) National Highway & roads more than 50 Mts. in width 2 Mts. 6.00 Mts. b) 20 Mts. to 50 Mts. 3 Mts. 4.50 Mts. c) 10 Mts. to 20 Mts. 2 Mts. 3.00 Mts. in width 2 Mts. 6.00 Mts. b) 20 Mts. to 50 Mts. 3 Mts. 4.50 Mts. c) 10 Mts. to 20 Mts. 2 Mts. 3.00 Mts. d) Less than 10 Mts. 1 Mts. 1.50 Mts. For making amendment in the provisions of the said G.D.C.R. the darkhast is made by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation vide its letter dated 23-11-2005 letter No. R.M.C.T. Planning G. No. 2083. Road width range [in Mts.] Height of Hoarding [width] Maximum Length of Hoarding a) National Highway & roads more than 50 Mts. in width 6.00 Mts. 12.00 Mts. b) 20 Mts. to 50 Mts. 4.50 Mts. 9.00 Mts. c) 10 Mts. to 20 Mts. 3.00 Mts. 6.00 Mts. d) Less than 10 Mts. 2 Mts. 3.00 Mts. The consideration and discussions as per the above details were held, and as per the approved G.D.C.R. Regulations. Regulation No. 21.2 provisions the Authority shall first inform the Government and as per the local situation/requirement the Authority is competent to determine the hoarding size, the information in this regard has to be first made to the Government Urban Development Department and in place of the table showing the hoarding width and height sizes in Regulation 21.2 it is unanimously resolved to be amended as per the proposed amendment. In the Regulation No. 21.2 the following table to be taken into consideration. Road width range [in Mts.] Height of Hoarding [width] Maximum Length of Hoarding a) National Highway & roads more than 50 Mts. in width 6.00 Mts. 12.00 Mts. b) 20 Mts. to 50 Mts. 4.50 Mts. 9.00 Mts. c) 10 Mts. to 20 Mts. 3.00 Mts. 6.00 Mts. d) Less than 10 Mts. 2 Mts. 3.00 Mts. 20. Regulation 21 deals with control of signs (hoardings), and outdoor display structures and paging tower and telephone tower and outdoor display structures, relevant provision of which reads as follows : "21. CONTROL OF SIGNS (HOARDINGS) AND OUTDOOR DISPLAY STRUCTURES AND PAGING TOWER AND TELEPHONE TOWER AND OUTDOOR DISPLAY STRUCTURES. 21.1 PERMISSION Only authorised signs (Hoarding), paging tower and telephone towers will be permitted. CONTROL OF SIGNS (HOARDINGS) AND OUTDOOR DISPLAY STRUCTURES AND PAGING TOWER AND TELEPHONE TOWER AND OUTDOOR DISPLAY STRUCTURES. 21.1 PERMISSION Only authorised signs (Hoarding), paging tower and telephone towers will be permitted. 21.2 DESIGN AND SIZE Every hoarding shall be designed so as to withstand the wind, dead; seismic and other loads and other structural requirements in accordance with the N.B.C. In the case of shopping units in commercial areas and/or residential-cum-commercial buildings, the display boards shall be at the same height above the shopping arcade and shall ordinarily be 45.5 cms. to 61 cms. in height. The placement and size of the boards shall form a part of the building permission and no change therein shall be permitted nor shall any additional boards be allowed to be displayed. Sizes of hoarding along the various roads shall be permitted as prescribed by appropriate authority. The appropriate authority shall prescribe size of the hoarding according to local conditions and requirements with prior intimation to the State Government. Road width range [in Mts.] Height of Hoarding [width] Maximum Length of Hoarding a) National Highway & roads more than 50 Mts. in width 2 Mts. 6.00 Mts. b) 20 Mts. to 50 Mts. 3 Mts. 4.50 Mts. c) 10 Mts. to 20 Mts. 2 Mts. 3.00 Mts. d) Less than 10 Mts. 1 Mts. 1.50 Mts. 21.3 PROHIBITED SIGNS The following signs are prohibited along major roads, having width beyond 18.00 Mts. : (a) Any sign that by reason of its shapes, position or colour may be confused with an authorized traffic sign or signal. (b) Any sign containing the word "Stop", "Look", "Danger" or other similar word that might mislead or confuse the travellers. (c) Any sign that is attached to or printed on a rock or other natural objects and (d) Any sign that is located within a public right-of-way unless it is an official street name, traffic sign or signal or other official sign. 21.5 HOARDING ON ROOF Following provisions shall apply for roof-signs : (a) Location: No roof-sign shall be placed on or over the roof of any building, unless the entire roof construction is of noncombustible material. The top of sign-board should confirm the building height regulations. (b) Projection: No roof-sign shall project beyond the existing building line of the building on which it is erected or shall extend beyond the roof in any direction. The top of sign-board should confirm the building height regulations. (b) Projection: No roof-sign shall project beyond the existing building line of the building on which it is erected or shall extend beyond the roof in any direction. (c) Support & Anchorage: Every roof-sign shall be thoroughly secured and anchored to the building on or over which it is erected. All loads shall be safety distributed to the structural members of the building. 21.6 WALL-SIGNS Following provisions shall apply for wall-signs : (a) Dimensions: The total area of the sign shall not exceed 25 per cent of the total area of the facade on which the sign is erected. The facade of the building shall be sub-divided into blocks of uniform height and the area of the sign erected on particular block shall not exceed 25 per cent of the area of that block. (b) Projection: No wall-sign shall extend above the, top of the wall or beyond the ends of the wall to which it is attached. At any place where pedestrians may pass along a wall, any wall-sign attached thereto shall not project more than 7.5 cms. therefrom within a height of 2.5 Mts. measured from the level of such place. (c) Support & Attachment: Every wall-sign shall be securely attached to walls, wooden blocks or anchorage with wood used in connection with screws, staples or nails shall not be considered proper anchorage, except in the case of wall-signs attached to walls of wood. (d) Reflectors: Lighting reflectors may project 2.4 Mts. beyond the face of the wall provided such reflectors are at least 4 Mt. above the footpath level, but in no case shall such reflectors project beyond a vertical place one metre inside the kerbline. 21.7 PROJECTING SIGNS No projecting sign or any part of its supports or frame work shall project more than 2 metres beyond the main face of the building to which such sign is attached. At every place where pedestrians may pass underneath a projecting sign, an over-head clearance of at least 2.5 Mts. shall be maintained. 21.7 PROJECTING SIGNS No projecting sign or any part of its supports or frame work shall project more than 2 metres beyond the main face of the building to which such sign is attached. At every place where pedestrians may pass underneath a projecting sign, an over-head clearance of at least 2.5 Mts. shall be maintained. Comprehensive Sign Design : Particularly in the case of an existing structure where because of the code amendment new signet is likely to cover less of the building facade than previously, it is hoped that Comprehensive Sign Designs will encourage the rehabilitation of the building front itself as well as the careful design of the sign that goes on it. 21.8 SIGNS IN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT AREAS These signs must confirm with the zoning regulations and with the urban renewal plan or special restrictions for the area, which may include additional regulations or requirements. 21.8.1 BANNERS, SIGN-BOARDS ETC. : Banners, sign-boards and several other kinds of signs other than on-premise signs shall be only temporarily permitted. 21.8.2 No signs within 30 Mts. distance of a park entrances or institutional entrances shall be permitted." 21. Similar provisions have been made for telecommunication infrastructure (Paging, Cellular Mobiles, 'v' SAT., MTNL etc.) under Clause 21.11. 22. Under Regulation 21.1 in the case of shopping units in commercial areas and/or residential-cum-commercial buildings, the display boards shall be at the same height above the shopping arcade and shall ordinarily be 45.5 cms. to 61 cms. The maximum height of hoardings on National Highway is 3 Mts. and maximum length of hoardings is 6 Mts. Therefore, the question of installing hoarding of size of 300' x 15' or 87' x 37', etc. does not arise. This apart, no person can install such hoardings without a written permission or licence from the competent authority/Corporation. 23. We have already seen that none of the appellants have obtained any written permission or licence from the Corporation to install hoardings of the size as noticed above. Though, receipts have been shown and it is accepted by the Corporation that licence-fee has been deposited, but mere deposition of such licence-fee will not create any right in favour of one or other to install a hoarding or sign-board without a written permission or licence. Though, receipts have been shown and it is accepted by the Corporation that licence-fee has been deposited, but mere deposition of such licence-fee will not create any right in favour of one or other to install a hoarding or sign-board without a written permission or licence. Such hoardings of larger size also cannot be installed beyond the size prescribed under the Development Control Regulations, 2001, which have come into effect from 20th February, 2004, even if the appellants have deposited the licence-fee. 24. In any case, since the year 2009-2010, as none of the appellants have deposited the licence-fee or have been granted any licence or written permission to install hoardings or sign-boards at one or the other place, including roof-tops of buildings or on the roadside of a town circle or on the National Highways, they cannot claim any right to install such hoarding. 25. In the present case, it has been argued that no notice was issued before the demolition of the hoardings as none of the appellants were served with any such notice, who had installed their hoardings at different places. 26. Under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 245 of the B.P.M.C. Act, the owner of the building or the land or the structure is deemed to be the person who has erected or exhibited the hoardings in contravention of the provisions of law. Under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 245, the Commissioner is required to give in writing a notice to the owner or occupier of the land, building, wall, hoarding or structure upon which the advertisement has been erected. 27. Admittedly, none of the appellants are the owners of the land or the buildings. Therefore, they cannot say whether such notices were issued on the owners or the occupiers of the buildings. 28. Learned Single Judge on appreciation of facts has come to a definite conclusion that notices were issued on the appellants also. Learned Counsel for the Rajkot Municipal Corporation referred to such notice dated 26-12-2007 issued to Everest Advertising, from which it appears that notice under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 245 was issued, English version of which reads as follows : "RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Town Planning Branch "Dr. Learned Counsel for the Rajkot Municipal Corporation referred to such notice dated 26-12-2007 issued to Everest Advertising, from which it appears that notice under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 245 was issued, English version of which reads as follows : "RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Town Planning Branch "Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan", Dhebarbhai Road, Rajkot-360001 RMC/TP/Hoarding/West Zone/Outward No. 202 Date : 26-12-2007 To, Everest Advertising 404, Crystal Arcade Near Navrangpura Telephone Exchange C. G. Road, Ahmedabad Hoarding Board Site Sombhai Chowk, Amabhai Na Bhattha (2) Number of Hoarding Board-1 Sub. : Regarding approval for the Hoarding Board. Ref. : Notice as per Sr. 2 under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, Sec. 245(3) by this office dated 19-11-2007. Your reply dated 22-11-2007. After the permission is obtained from the Rajkot Municipal Corporation within the Municipal Corporation limits, only thereafter the publicity on the hoardings can be done; such are the provisions of law. With regard to the hoarding board at the above-mentioned site notice is issued by this office. The reply to the said notice is given by you as per the Sr. 2, and made your representation. The representation made by you and the hoarding board at the above site does not appear to be liable for grating approval. Therefore, as per the main issues relating to the 'hoarding board' enclosed herewith and as per the provisions of the General Development Control Regulations the hoarding board be prepared, and accordingly, the application in the specified form be made through the registered licence-holder and the approval be obtained within 10 (ten) days. If the approval is not obtained within the stipulated time period then, as per the notice issued the procedure for removing the hoarding will be taken on hand. Make special note of the same. Sd/- Assistant Town Planner Rajkot Municipal Corporation Enclosure : As above" 29. It appears that a similar notice dated 19-12-2007 was issued on the said party. According to the appellants, by the aforesaid notices they were asked to deposit the requisite amount of licence-fee, but the Reference portion of the notice shows that they were issued notices under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 245. Even if it is accepted that they were asked to deposit licence-fee, it is not in dispute that they have not been granted permission or licence, even after acceptance of licence-fee. 30. (3) of Sec. 245. Even if it is accepted that they were asked to deposit licence-fee, it is not in dispute that they have not been granted permission or licence, even after acceptance of licence-fee. 30. In the case of M.C.D. v. Delhi Outdoor Advertiser's Association, reported in 1997 (11) SCC 241 the Supreme Court held that after expiry of the period of contract, right to advertise ceases, and therefore, removal of the hoardings need not be preceded by a show-cause notice by the Corporation to the affected party. The relevant portion of the Court's observation reads as follows : "2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Since the hoardings have been removed, the grievance of the M.C.D. does not survive so far as that aspect is concerned. However, the learned Counsel for the M.C.D. contends that the Division Bench of the High Court was wrong in holding that before removal of the hoardings a show-cause notice is a must. We think that the learned Counsel for the M.C.D. is on a firm ground so far as this contention is concerned because once the period of the contract comes to an end by efflux of time, the right to advertise ceases and the hoardings ought to be removed and there is no question of the removal being preceded by a show-cause notice. Therefore, the observation of the Division Bench to this extent does not appear to be correct. The appeal will stand disposed of with this modification in the order. There will be no order as to costs." 31. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, reported in 1997 (8) SCC 770 , the Supreme Court issued direction on 20th November, 1997 and the authorities were inter alia directed to remove all hoardings, which are on road sides, and which are hazardous and a disturbance to safe traffic movement. Subsequently, a petition was filed in the said case by Delhi Outdoor Advertisers' Association for clarification/modification of the order dated 20th November, 1997, but the Supreme Court refused to modify the same by its order passed in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, reported in 1998 (1) SCC 363 , and again directed the authorities to remove all hoardings which are on the road side and hazardous and create disturbance to safe traffic movement. 32. 32. In the case of T. N. Outdoor Advertising Association v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1736 , the Supreme Court having noticed the provisions of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, and the direction given by the Corporation for removal of hoardings, held that the power given to Commissioner to remove hoardings which he felt was hazardous is not arbitrary for want of guidelines. The writ petition challenging the removal of hoardings was dismissed. However, Supreme Court observed that to comply with principles of natural justice, there is need to grant some reasonable time to the appellants to make necessary application for applying grant/renewal of licence in the said case. 33. Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Infant Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Bangalore City Corporation, reported in AIR 2003 Kant. 79 held that under the advertisement bye-laws, payment of tax at the time of applying for fresh licence or renewal having been made mandatory, the mere fact that the petitioner of the said case presented the application along with necessary tax could not entitle the petitioner of the said case with automatic renewal of the licence. Payment of tax on the hoardings is a pre-condition that is to be satisfied at the time of application. The sanction or rejection of application would depend upon several factors. 34. The provisions of Chennai City Municipal Act, 1919 again fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Nowa ADS v. Secretaty, Deptt. of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2941 . In the said case, the Supreme Court observed as follows : "23. Hoardings erected on private places also require to be licensed and regulated as they generally abut on and are visible on public roads and public places. Hoarding erected on a private building may obstruct public roads when put up on private buildings; they may be dangerous to the building and to the public; they may be hazardous and dangerous to the smooth flow of traffic by distracting traffic, and their content may be obscene or objectionable. It is, therefore, not correct that hoardings on private places do not require to be regulated by licensing provisions. 24. Rule 6 of the 2003 Rules put restrictions on the size of hoardings, on their height, the spacing, etc. and the requirement of erection on steel frames. It is, therefore, not correct that hoardings on private places do not require to be regulated by licensing provisions. 24. Rule 6 of the 2003 Rules put restrictions on the size of hoardings, on their height, the spacing, etc. and the requirement of erection on steel frames. Rule 10 restricts the hoarding to be put on certain places such as educational institutions, places of worship, hospitals, corners of roads, in front of places of historical and aesthetic importance. 25. The power to license is not unfettered and is guided by the above considerations. Under Rule 11 an appeal lies to the State Government for refusing the grant or renewal of licences. Section 326J of the Act empowers the District Collector to prohibit the erection of hazardous hoardings and hoardings which are hazardous and a disturbance to the safe traffic movement so as to adversely affect the free and safe flow of traffic. The power under Sec. 326J is not arbitrary as held by the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1998 (1) SCC 363 on an identical provision relating to case of hoarding in New Delhi. Any action taken under Sec. 326J must be taken by observing the principles of natural justice and supported by reasons. An appeal against the order of the District Collector for action under Sec. 326J lies to the State Government under Sec. 326H. There cannot be a presumption of misuse of power merely because discretion is conferred on a public authority for the exercise use of the power. In Narayana Bhat's case, this Court has negatived the contention that the power of the licensing authorities is arbitrary and unguided. 27. Section 326-J of the Act prohibits erection of certain hoardings which are hazardous. The expression "hazardous" as an adjective, connotes something that is "risky" or "dangerous" vide, Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, page 736. 37. Obstruction has a wider meaning than mere physical obstruction and it includes tangible and identifiable obstruction and even a protest is obstructing. " In the said case, the Supreme Court further held as follows : "51. The fact that the hoarding is on building or private land does not take away the regulatory measures relating to hoardings. There can be cases where because of the size and the height, it can be dangerous to public and also be hazardous. " In the said case, the Supreme Court further held as follows : "51. The fact that the hoarding is on building or private land does not take away the regulatory measures relating to hoardings. There can be cases where because of the size and the height, it can be dangerous to public and also be hazardous. There is no structural safeguard in respect of such hoardings. There has to be regulatory measures. As has been rightly contended by learned Counsel for the respondents, the Act and the Advertisement Rules do not regulate advertisement. They regulate putting of the hoarding which is found to be objectionable, destructive or obstructive in character. 52. It cannot be said that there is infringement of freedom of speech. The content, effect and the purpose of statute clearly show that it is not intended to be so." 35. In view of the provisions of law as cited above, and the decisions of the Courts, including the Supreme Court as referred to above, we answer the first question in affirmative, in favour of the Corporation and against the appellants. The second question is answered in negative in favour of the Corporation and against the appellants, as the appellants had no right to erect hoardings and advertisements, and thereby, removal of hoardings was not required to be preceded by a show-cause notice as held by the Supreme Court even it is accepted that impliedly they had permission to put a hoarding, but the period of such permission having expired, they have no right to continue with the hoardings or advertisements. 36. Learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition based on facts of the case, and in view of our finding as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. In abs nee of any merit, the appeals are dismissed, but there shall be no orders as to costs. In view of the observations made by us in the judgment delivered today, prayer for stay of the judgment is rejected. Appeals dismissed.