https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1684745348039016448?t=P0Lgejh46OwHR2yARvbgSQ&s=08 J.NISHA BANU, J. and N.MALA,J. J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, representing Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Mrs.K.Aswinidevi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Corporation,  would submit that the petitioners had put up illegal hoardings defrauding the Government of legitimate revenue

1. https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1684745348039016448?t=P0Lgejh46OwHR2yARvbgSQ&s=08
4. Nos.21842, 21846, 21847,21850, 22008, 22044, 22049

& 22052 of 2023 & W.P.No.13476 of 2019

and W.P.Nos.20088, 20250, 20253, 20254, 20265, 20269, 20276 , 20270, 20274, 20280, 20306, 20310,  20427, 20429, 20431, 20776, 20780,

20950, 20954, 20957, 20960, 21079, 21086, 21084, 21087, 21089, 21106,

21088, 21093, 21090, 20195, 21094, 21098, 21103, 21138, 21141, 21144, 21162, 21166, 21168, 21167, 21171, 21344, 21348, 21347, 21625 of 2023 and

W.M.P.Nos.21165, 21168, 21170, 21171, 21173, 21174, 21177, 21178,

  21371, 21372, 21419,   21420, 21428, 21429, 21432,   21433 of 2023 & W.M.P.No.13583 of 2019 and

W.M.P.Nos. 19427, 19428, 19578 to 19583, 19598, 19599, 19605, 19608,

19617, 19619, 19606, 19609, 19614, 19615, 19623, 19624, 19666, 19667, 19671, 19675, 19816, 19817, 19812, 19815, 19818, 19819,  20150,

20151, 20154, 20155, 20323, 20325, 20326, 20328, 20334, 20335, 20338,

20339, 20462, 20464, 20473, 20476, 20471, 20472, 20475, 20478, 20479,

20480, 20505, 20506, 20474, 20477, 20485, 20486, 20481, 20482, 20488,

20490, 20487, 20489, 20492, 20494, 20501, 20503, 20530, 20531, 20533,

20536, 20538, 20540, 20561, 20562, 20568, 20569, 20571, 20572, 20570,

20573, 20575, 20576, 20743, 20744, 20751, 20752, 20749, 20750, 20994

&  20995 of 2023

J.NISHA BANU, J.

and N.MALA,J.

The petitioners have challenged the demand notice, demanding remittance of rent/damage fee for erection of  hoardings.

2. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.04.2023 had passed the following order.

• The petitioners in W.P.Nos.25220 & 25221 of 2018, 25856 of 2019 and the petitioners who have filed applications for license are directed to pay the rent as per the old rate of Rs.700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred only) per sq.ft. to the Greater Chennai Corporation from the date of their erection of hoardings till 13.04.2023 the date on which new Rules came into force.
• The petitioner in W.P.No.22622 of 2022 is directed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred only) per sq.ft. from 01.04.2020 to 13.04.2023.
• We make it clear that the petitioners who have not filed applications for license are directed to pay the rent as per the revised rate of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per sq.ft. to the Greater Chennai Corporation from the date of erection of hoardings till 13.04.2023.

On payment of rents as directed above and filing their applications as per the new Rules within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the respondents are directed to consider the applications of the petitioners, after giving opportunity of hearing and pass orders on the applications as per the new Rules, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of applications. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners. The petitioners are liable to pay charges as per new Rules. It is made clear that if petitioners fail to pay the charges as directed above and fail to submit applications for permission/renewal, it is open to the Corporation to remove the hoardings treating the same as unauthorised hoardings.

3. J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, representing Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents and Mrs.K.Aswinidevi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Corporation,  would submit that the petitioners had put up illegal hoardings defrauding the Government of legitimate revenue. Therefore, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had passed the aforesaid direction to pay the rent/damage fees for erection of illegal hoardings. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the assessment of rent towards damages for illegal hoardings was calculated on square feet basis as per the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench. The learned Additional Advocate General  submitted that the petitioners have filed Review Petitions challenging the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench fixing the rent/damages on square feet basis and the same is pending. The learned counsel, on instructions, submitted that the calculation should be on square meter basis. Therefore, he would submit that appropriate direction may be issued to the petitioners to remit the rent/ damage fees within a time to be stipulated by this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the objections of the petitioners are not only with regard to the calculation on the basis of square feet but also with regard to the date of erection of the hoardings. Learned counsel would further submit that the 3rd respondent/ concerned authority had committed an error in calculating the fees for one license period, i.e., 3 years,  instead of giving an opportunity to the petitioners to establish the exact date of erection of hoardings. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that they may be given an opportunity to appear before the 3rd respondent/ concerned authority, to establish the date of erection of hoardings, so that the appropriate  amount could be assessed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the materials placed on record.
6. As far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it is conceded by the learned Additional Advocate General that the calculation should be on square meters basis and not on square feet basis. Therefore, the first grievance of the petitioners is addressed by the learned Additional Advocate General.
7. As far as the second objection of the petitioners is concerned, it is seen from the impugned order that the petitioners had not declared the date of erection of the illegal hoardings. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent, in the absence of any evidence on the exact date of erection of illegal hoardings, assessed the rent for one license period i.e., for 3 years. We, therefore, prima facie find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the 3rd respondent as the petitioners were at fault in not giving particulars with  regard to the exact date of erection of illegal hoardings.
8. In the light of the said discussions and considering that the petitioners continue with the illegal hoardings without any license till date, as an interim measure, a direction is issued to the petitioners to pay the rent/ damage fees for one license period i.e., for 3 years, as per the rate fixed by this Court in the order dated 28.04.2023 but in square meters, within a period of two weeks from today.  It is further made clear that on payment of the aforesaid  amount by the petitioners, they are at liberty to approach the 3rd respondent, to prove the exact date of erection of the hoardings to the satisfaction of the authority.
9. Post the matter on 09.08.2023.

J.N.B,J.)  (N.M.,J.)

26.07.2023

vsi

Note:

i)Upload order copy on 27.07.2023 ii)Issue order copy on 28.07.2023

J.NISHA BANU, J. and N.MALA,J.

Vsi

W.P.Nos.21842, 21846, 21847

 & 21850 of 2023 etc. batch

26.07.2023