Madras High Court
Raghavan vs The Commissioner on 16 September, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.P.No.23887 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 22.07.2025
Pronounced on 16.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.No.23887 of 2025
Raghavan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
Thiruvannamalai City.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Chief Engineer Office,
Highways Constructions and Maintenance,
Thiruvannamalai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent
to restore the advertisement hoardings placed by the petitioner throughout
Thiruvannamalai City in pursuance of licence issued by the 1st respondent
under Licence No.1 of 2025 dated 13.02.2025 and License No.02/2025
dated 17.03.2025 and further direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with
the licences hoarding.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
W.P.No.23887 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
For Mrs.V.Srimathi
For R1 : Mr.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel
For R2 : Mr.J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.M.Venkateswaran
Spl. Govt. Pleader
*****
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU,J.)
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the 2nd
respondent to restore the advertisement hoardings placed by the petitioner
throughout Thiruvannamalai City in pursuance of licence issued by the 1st
respondent under License No.1 of 2025 dated 13.02.2025 and License No.2
of 2025 dated 17.03.2025 and further direct the 2nd respondent not to
interfere with the licences hoarding.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been running a
Company in the name and style of 'Nava Sai Media' in Thiruvannamalai and
in order to promote his business, he has proposed to erect hoardings after
obtaining approval from the Municipal authorities, stipulated under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and the corresponding 2023
Rules. The petitioner has also remitted necessary fees, aggregating
Rs.11,89,400/- for erection of 140 boards. After receipt of the fees, he was
given License Nos.1 & 2 on 13.02.2025 and 17.03.2025 respectively for
placing hoardings at Venkikal-Anna Arch, Gandhi Nagar bye-pass and
Thindivanam Salai.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that all of a sudden, the 2nd
respondent had removed the hoardings in the month of April, 2025 without
any notice and caused huge financial loss to the petitioner. The reason
adduced by the 2nd respondent for removal of hoardings was that the boards
were erected on the highways, which cannot be accepted for the reason that
all the places, where hoardings were erected fall within the jurisdiction of 1 st
respondent and as such, the 2nd respondent cannot object to the erection of
hoardings on the places earmarked by the 1st respondent.
4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the hoardings were
placed on the permitted locations, namely Girivala Pathai in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
Thiruvannamalai and at the instance of the business rivalry, the 2nd
respondent has removed the hoardings without knowing the correct
distinction between the roads on the highways and the roads falling within
the city limits connecting the highway. Under Regulation 325 of the Tamil
Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, there is prohibition of placement of
hoardings in sensitive areas and the places in which the petitioner placed
boards are not sensitive areas. The act of the 2nd respondent is against
Regulation 322 r/w 328 of the Rules, 2023, which contemplate that the
power to grant licenses, etc for erecting hoards vests with the Municipal
Corporation within its jurisdiction and the same cannot be usurped by the
2nd respondent. Hence, aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent, the
petitioner is before this Court for a suitable direction.
5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it
has been inter alia stated as follows:
i) Erection of centre median displays with neon lights is not
permitted, as such displays distract the drivers of the vehicles and the
decision not to grant permission to erect advertisements within the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
Highways boundary was taken by the Highways and Minor Ports (HV1)
Department on the basis of the various orders of this Court and the Supreme
Court. This Court specifically concurred in W.P.No.41289 of 2016 on
30.10.2017 that no obstruction or distraction should be made to the drivers
of fast moving vehicles on the highways. A policy on roadside
advertisement has been formulated by Indian Road Congress vide IRC:46-
1972 and the Central Ministry vide Circular No.RW/NH-
33044/35/2001/S&R(R) dated 16.05.2002 ensured that no advertisement
hoardings are permitted on the National Highways, except informatory signs
of public interest.
ii) On the basis of the order of this Court dated 30.10.2017, the
Chief Engineer (H), Construction & Maintenance instructed all
Superintending Engineers & Divisional Engineers (H), C & M Wing vide
MEMO dated 14.12.2017, 13.02.2019 and 09.08.2024 to adhere to the
orders of this Court scrupulously. The Revenue Administration, Disaster
Management and Mitigation Department has also issued a letter dated
13.04.2018 for regulation of erection of hoardings by enforcing the
respective Municipal Acts and Rules made thereunder.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
iii) It is stated in the counter that the Municipal Corporations
are governed by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and the
said Act was replaced by the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and
Rules, 2023 with effect from 13.04.2023. As per Rule 320, it is mandatory
to obtain No Objection letter from the competent authority of the State
Government under whose authority the land or buildings fall. The petitioner
has not obtained any such permission to erect hoardings within the
boundaries of Highways Road. The petitioner, on the presumption that all
roads passings through Municipal limits are Municipal Roads and on the
basis of the licenses granted by the Municipal Corporation, erected
hoardings on the land belonging to the 2nd respondent. Though the petitioner
issued a legal notice dated 16.04.2025, a reply was sent to him on
28.04.2025 itself, incorporating various rules and orders of Courts. The 2nd
respondent has only evicted illegal hoardings from the boundaries of the
Highways Roads as directed by this Court and the instructions issued by the
Highways and Revenue Departments. The 2nd respondent has already
informed the 1st respondent not to grant any permission to erect hoardings
on Highways boundaries without getting No Objection from the Highways
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
Authorities. The erection of hoardings on the Highways was made by the
petitioner without approval of the Highways Department and therefore, the
directions, namely, restoration of advertisement hoardings, reimbursement
of the costs for re-erection, etc., cannot be issued, as the 2nd respondent has
exercised its statutory duty in strict adherence to the orders of this Court and
the subsequent circulars of the Highways Department and therefore, this
Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no
illegality can be attributed to the petitioner in erecting hoardings, as the
petition has duly obtained Licenses from the Municipal Corporation. The
hoardings are raised on lamp posts, which exclusively belong to the local
body and therefore, there is no need to obtain any No Objection from the
Highways authorities. In the absence of any stipulation in the Tamil Nadu
Highways Act, 2001 to obtain No Objection, the insistence on the part of
the 2nd respondent to that effect is illegal and motivated. He further
submitted that the act of the 2nd respondent in removing hoardings without
any notice or intimation is in violation of the principles of natural justice,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
ignoring the fact that boards were installed after obtaining licenses from the
Municipal authorities. Any policy drawn by Indian Road Congress (IRC)
has no statutory value or force in the light of the judgment of this Court in
W.P.Nos.34652 of 2019 and 7280 of 2020 decided on 10.08.2021, holding
as under:
“13. To the extent that the no~objection certificate
required the IRC:12~2009 guidelines to be followed, it can be
said that in view of the recent consistent stand taken by this
court that the IRC guidelines do not have any statutory force and
are not mandatory, the breach of the IRC guidelines may not be
fatal. It must also be recognised that notwithstanding the
injunction subsisting now, substantial construction had been
carried out previously. Even if it is accepted that no equity can
be claimed by the private oil company as a consequence of
commencing the construction and even if the petitioner-s version
is accepted that the construction has not been completed, it does
not appear that at the time that the proposal for setting up the
retail outlet was submitted or at the time that the no~objection
certificate was issued on November 11, 2019, it was necessary
for the strict conditions which are now in place to be followed or
imposed in connection with the setting up of a new fuel outlet.”
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to the
judgments of this Court on the aspect of obtaining NOC from the 2 nd
respondent in i) Durai Venkatachalam vs. Additional Chief Secretary,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department and others, reported in
2019 SCC Online MAD 8587 and ii) M.G.Saravanan vs. Commissioner of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
Police and others, reported in 2020 SCC Online MAD 28403 to
substantiate his argument that the conduct and attitude of the 2nd respondent
can be construed as an unjust enrichment at the cost of gullible petitioner.
When the places of hoardings actually belong to the Municipal Corporation,
falling within its limit, the removal of boards by the 2 nd respondent, citing
irrelevant reasons is contrary to the provisions of various Acts, Rules and
dictum laid down by this Court.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the 2nd respondent contended that there is no need to issue any notice to
the petitioner, whiling evicting immovable properties encroached on
Highways Road, which include hoardings as per Sections 26 and 28(2)(i) of
the Highway Act, 2001. The hoardings put up by the petitioner contained
only contact numbers and therefore, it can be inferred that the petitioner has
obtained licenses with an intention to sublet the place to some third parties.
On the basis of existence of street lights being maintained by the Municipal
Corporation on the lands belonging to Highways Department, it cannot be
said that licenses issued by the Municipal Corporation are sufficient to erect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
hoardings on any place without obtaining prior permission from the
authorities concerned. In that event, the orders passed by this Court as well
as the Supreme Court will get diluted, endangering the life and safety of end
users / public at large. Therefore, it is stated that no malafide can be
attributed in the action of the 2nd respondent, as it is the paramount duty of
the 2nd respondent to ensure removal of obstruction for the free flow of
traffic and accident free zone and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for R2, the learned
Standing Counsel for R1 and perused the material documents as well as
various judgments of this Court and Supreme Court.
10. The core submission of the petitioner is that he was granted
licenses on 13.02.2025 and 17.03.2025 by the Municipal authorities as per
Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and the corresponding 2023
Rules for erection of 140 boards on payment of requisite fees, aggregating
Rs.11,89,400/-. He also placed boards at Venkikal-Anna Arch, Gandhi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
Nagar bye-pass and Thindivanam Salai in consonance with the approval of
the authorities. However, the 2nd respondent removed the hoardings without
any intimation to the petitioner and caused monetary loss to the petitioner,
by citing reasons that the boards were erected on the highways. The
petitioner duly erected hoardings on the places assigned within the
jurisdiction of the 1st respondent and there is no justification on the part of
the 2nd respondent in removing the hoardings of the petitioner high-
handedly.
11. According to the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is empowered to remove
boards placed in the form of panel, beam, etc., in terms of Sections 26 and
28(2)(i) of the Highway Act, 2001. There was a hindrance on account of the
hoarding hoardings put up by the petitioner and it is the paramount duty of
the Department in ensuring the Highways as accident free zones. The
permission of the 1st respondent alone will not be sufficient to erect boards
on the Highways and there is an utter violation of placement of hoardings
by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
12. Prima facie, it could be visualized that the hoardings were
erected adjacent to and within the boundaries of Highways roads, on the
wrong notion that the grant of licenses by the Municipal Corporation will
authorize them to do so. The Municipal Corporation cannot decide about the
location, which actually falls under the control of Highways Authority, as
the petitioner, with the ticket purchased to travel one particular area, cannot
be permitted to fly to a different area. Moreover, Rule 320 of the Tamil
Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023 specifically contemplates that in case
lands belong to other authorities, a duty is cast upon the licence-holder to
obtain a No Objection Certificate from such authority. However, the
petitioner has not complied with such requirement.
13. A reading of the provisions of Sections 26 and 28(2)(i) of
the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 unravels the fact that there is no hurdle
for the Highways Department to remove encroachments found on the
Highways. For the sake of convenience, Sections 26 and 28(2)(i) of the
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 are reproduced hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
“26. Prevention of unauthorised occupation of highway.
(1) No person shall occupy or encroach on any highway
within the highway boundaries.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), the Highways Authority may, with the concurrence of the
Collector and with due regard to the safety and convenience of
traffic and subject to such conditions, and on payment of such
rent or other charges as may be prescribed, grant permission, of
a temporary nature, to any person;
(a) to make any temporary use of any highway in front of
any building owned or occupied by him or make a temporary
structure overhanging the highway; or
(b) to put up a temporary awning or tent, pandal or other
similar erection or a temporary stall or scaffolding on any
highway; or
(c) to deposit or cause to be deposited building materials,
goods for sale or other articles on any highway for a specified
period; or
(d) to make a temporary excavation on any highway for
carrying out any repairs or improvements to building on lands
adjoining such highway:Provided that no such permission shall
be deemed to be valid beyond a period of one year, unless it is
expressly renewed by the Highways Authority.
(3) The permission granted under sub-section (2) shall
clearly specify the date upto which and the purpose for which
the occupation of the highway is authorised and the exact
portion of the highway so permitted to be occupied, and shall
also be accompanied by a plan or sketch of that portion of the
highway. A copy of such permission shall be communicated to
the Collector for the purpose of record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
(4) The person in whose favour such permission has been
given shall produce the permit for inspection whenever called
upon to do so by the Highways Authority, or any officer
authorised by it in that behalf and shall, at the end of the period
specified in the permit, vacate the portion of the highway
occupied by him, after restoring it to the same state as it
originally stood before the occupation by him.
(5) The Highways Authority shall maintain a complete
record of all such permissions granted, and shall also cause an
inspection to be made in every case at the expiration of the
period up to which such occupation has been permitted, to
ensure that the portion of the highway has actually been
vacated.
(6) The permission granted under sub-section (2) shall be
in such form and subject to such conditions as may be
prescribed.
28 (2) The Highways Authority or any person
authorised by it in this behalf, may
(i) remove, without any notice, any movable temporary
structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any article whatsoever
hawked, exposed or displayed for sale or any other thing
whatsoever by way of encroaching the highway or in any area
where the construction or development of a highway is
undertaken or proposed to be undertaken;
14. As regards the argument based on the absence of statutory
force of IRC guidelines, it is relevant to point out that the prohibition
against erection of hoardings on Highways does not rest solely upon such
guidelines, but also on statutory provisions and binding precedents of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
Court and the Supreme Court. The next plea of violation of natural justice
lacks merits acceptance for the reason that the Statute itself authorizes
summary eviction of encroachment on Highways, as the paramount
consideration of safety of road users must prevail over commercial
considerations of the petitioner.
15. We have come across several incidents occurred in Chennai
on account of hoardings erected on the roads. More recently, in June 2025, a
Security Guard was injured, when an unauthorized hoarding collapsed in
Villivakkam during heavy winds and rain. It has become a fashion to erect
illegal and unsafe hoardings on roads without prior permission from the
concerned Departments by the political parties and for commercial purposes
without realizing its menace to the public at large, despite Court's ban on
such erection. Though hoarding erection in our State is tightly regulated
under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 2022, due to lack of strict
enforcement by the authorities concerned, there are incidents occurred here
and there, leading to fatalities and public concern. Illegal hoardings are
erected without safety considerations, creating hazards, like distracted
driving and falling debris during heavy winds or cycles
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
16. In the given case, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the petitioner erected hoardings on Highways land without obtaining
mandatory approval from the Highways Department. The licenses issued by
the Municipal Corporation cannot override the statutory control of the
Highways Department. It is not established beyond doubt that the 2nd
respondent acted beyond its statutory powers and therefore, no mala fides
can be attributed to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, we do not find any merits
in the argument advanced by the petitioner and the Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed.
17. In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
(J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
16.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
To:
1. The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
Thiruvannamalai City.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Chief Engineer Office,
Highways Constructions and Maintenance,
Thiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
16.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:29 pm )
