Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2779 (MAD)

A. Palanichamy v. District Collector

2014-08-21

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment M. Jaichandren,J. 1. Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove all unauthorised flex boards and banners erected in and around the city of Madurai, along the public roads and in public places and to ensure the free movement of the general public. 3. Mr.Veera Kathiravan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that a number of unauthorised hoardings, flex boards, and digital banners have been erected in many places in and around the city of Madurai and in the road medians. The unauthorised hoardings, flex boards and digital banners are causing hindrance to the free movement of the general public and it is also causing danger to the lives and properties of the people of the area concerned. Therefore, the respondents ought to be directed to remove the unauthorised hoardings, flex boards and digital banners and to take appropriate action against those who are responsible for putting them up, as per the Government Order, in G.O.(Ms)No.175, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election) Department, dated 16.11.2011. 4. Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the permission has been granted for putting up the hoardings and digital banners at various places in and around the city of Madurai, by the authorities concerned. He had also submitted that appropriate action would be taken against the unauthorised hoardings, flex boards and digital banners, in accordance with the rules framed under G.O.(Ms)No.175, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election) Department, dated 16.11.2011, and in accordance with the other relevant provisions of law. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents that appropriate action would be taken against unauthorised hoardings, flex boards and digital banners, in accordance with law, we are of the considered view that no further orders are necessary, in this Writ Petition, at this statge. Hence, the Writ Petition stands closed. No costs.