IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 18.01.2007 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P. Nos.1767 to 1770 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2007 Adgro Advertising rep. By its Proprietor Suresh Kumar D Jain, No.30 Maddox Street, 2nd floor, Choolai, Chennai 112. .. Petitioner in all WPs. -vs- 1. The District Collector, Chennai District, Singaravelar Maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 1. 2. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai 3. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 8. 4. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Vepery, Chennai 7. .. Respondents in all WPs. Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the issue of the first respondent's impugned orders Rc.No.J7/38019/2003 dated 27.12.2006, Rc.No.J7/38252/2003 dated 27.12.2006, Rc.No.J7/37060/2003 dated 28.12.2006 and Rc.No.J7/34393/2003 dated 27.12.2006 respectively, quash the same and pass such consequential orders or directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to scrutinize afresh the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's application for licence to the hoarding referred to in the impugned order, after giving opportunity to comply the statutory requirements as per rules. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajendiran For Respondents : Mr.Rajakalifullah,G.P. (For RR 1,3 and 4) Mr.G.T.Subramanian (For R2) C O M M O N O R D E R ( Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, Chennai dated 27.12.2006 directing the petitioner to remove the hoardings immediately along with the frames and structures supporting it, the petitioner has filed the above writ petitions. 2. Learned Government Pleader has brought to our notice that the issue in question is covered by Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in W.P.Nos.7143 of 2006 etc. batch dated 10.08.2006, reported in 2006(4) MLJ1033 (K.Kanagaraj vs. District Collector, Chennai and others). 3. By applying the said decision, we are of the view that the writ petitions are liable to dismissed, accordingly the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gms To 1. The District Collector, Chennai District, Singaravelar Maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 1. 2. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings,Chennai 3. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 8. 4. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Vepery, Chennai 7. + 8 CCs to Mr.K.Rajendran, Advocate SR NOs.3309, 3310, 3311 and 3312 + 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 2871 + 1 CC To Mr. G.T.Subramanian, Advocate SR NO. 3607 W.P.Nos.1767 to 1770 of 2007 ts[co] gp/23.1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/