M/S. NOVVA ADS versus SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 09-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 334 
A 
M/S. NOWA ADS 
~ 
~ 
V. 
SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 
AND WATER SUPPLY AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2702 of 2008) 
B 
APRIL 9, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
Chennai City Municipal Act, 1919; Ss. 326A to 326J as 
c introduced by Amending Acts dated 23. 7.1998 and 5.9.20001 
Chennai City Municipal Corporation (Licensing of Hoardings 
and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax) Rules, 2003; 
Rr. 3(i) & (iii), 6, 9, 10 and 11 !Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 
14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b): 
D 
License for erection of hoardings at public places -
Requirement of - Ss. 326(A) to (J) and Advertisement Rules 
- Constitutional validity of - Held: Valid - State has a right to 
regulate the public places as trustee and can impose such 
limitation on the user as are necessary to protect the public 
E generally - Ss. 326(A) to (J) and Advertisement Rules are 
made in public interest for preventing hazardous erection and 
for orderly and aesthetic appearance of the city - Hoardings 
erected at private places need to be regulated as they obstruct 
public roads and could be dangerous to buildings and public 
F - They may be hazardous/dangerous to smooth flow of traffic 
by distracting traffic and their contents may be obscene! 
objectionable - Power to grant license for the hoarding in terms 
J, 
of provisions uls. 326 of the Act based on reasonable/rationale 
consideration, thus, not arbitrary - R. 3 of the Rules does not 
G restrict or control the scope of s.326J of the Act - In terms of 
r 9A of the Rules, Collector empowered to take suo motu action 
against erection of objectionable hoardings - There is no ban 
on advertisement/hoardings but obstructive and destructive 
~
hoardings prohibited -
The Advertisement Rules do not 
+ 
H 
334 
+ 
M/S. NOWA ADS v. SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF 
335 
MUNICIPALADMN. & WATER SUPPLY &ANR. 
regulate advertisement but regulate the hoardings which are A 
objectionable/destructive/obstructive in character - Since the 
contents, effect and purpose of the Statute in question do not 
infringe the freedom of speech, it can not be said to be violative 
of the provisions under Article 19 of the Constitution. 
Administrative Law: 
'Delegated legislation' - Scope of 'Discussed. 
'Hazardous' and 'Obstruction' - Distinction between in the 
context of licensing of hoardings - Discussed. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Hazardous hoardings' - Meaning of in the context of 
s.326J of the Chennai City Municipal Act, 1919. 
B 
c 
'Obstruction' - Meaning of in the context of s. 3(iii) of 0 
Chennal City Municipal Corporation (Licensing of Hoardings 
and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax) Rules, 2003. 
Appellants challenged the validity of Ss.326A to 326J 
as introduced by the Amendment Acts in the Chennai City 
Municipal Act and also Chennai City Municipal E 
Corporation (Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and 
Collection of Advertisement Tax) Rules, 2003 before the 
High Court. While dismissing the petitions, High Court 
constituted a Committee for identifying and enumerating 
the places of historical importance/aesthetic value and 
F 
popular places of worship around the city and also 
directed to oversee the operation of removal of illegal and 
unauthorized hoardings and the State Government was 
directed not to grant/renew any license in respect of any 
hoardings which is not in conformity with the provisions G 
of the Act and the Advertisement Rules. It was also 
directed that no Civil Court shall entertain any application 
against demolition or removal of the unauthorized 
hoardings and the writ petitions challenging the 
demolition were to be placed before the Bench of the Chief H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A Justice of the High Court. Hence the present appeals and 
also the writ petitions. 
Appellants/petitioners 
contended 
that 
the 
Advertisement Rules are violative of Articles 19(1 )(a) and 
19(1 )(b) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and also violative 
8 of Article 14 because private hoardings have been treated 
equally with public hoardings, thereby treating unequals 
with equals; that even if it is conceded that the provisions 
must be relatable to the parameters of Article 19(2) of the 
Constitution, the Regulation results in restriction on use 
C of private land for advertisement; that there must be 
sufficient reason to curb the freedom of speech; that the 
burdensome levy is affecting freedom of speech, thus, 
unconstitution

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.