https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284559 Hoarding regulations were upheld as a valid public-interest framework governing location, size, structure, and licensing to protect traffic safety and orderly urban appearance. The scheme was not a blanket ban on advertisement speech and did not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), or 19(1)(b). Regulation extended to hoardings on private property where they abut public roads, and "obstruction" was construed broadly to include hazard, distraction, and other non-physical impediments to safe traffic flow. Licensing and removal powers were not arbitrary or unguided because the statutory framework supplied adequate standards, and adverse action had to be preceded by notice, reasons, and a reasoned decision in conformity with natural justice. en-us Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:38:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284559 Hoarding regulations were upheld as a valid public-interest framework governing location, size, structure, and licensing to protect traffic safety and orderly urban appearance. The scheme was not a blanket ban on advertisement speech and did not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), or 19(1)(b). Regulation extended to hoardings on private property where they abut public roads, and "obstruction" was construed broadly to include hazard, distraction, and other non-physical impediments to safe traffic flow. Licensing and removal powers were not arbitrary or unguided because the statutory framework supplied adequate standards, and adverse action had to be preceded by notice, reasons, and a reasoned decision in conformity with natural justice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284559