High Court Kerala High Court

Kannan vs National Highway Authority Of … on 9 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Kannan vs National Highway Authority Of … on 9 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2269 of 2010(G)


1. KANNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PREMJI,

                        Vs



1. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. NATTIKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.SAGEER

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :09/09/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                 W.P.(C) NO. 2269 OF 2010 (G)
                 =====================

         Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are businessmen who are carrying on their

business at Nattika in Trichur District. Their complaint is that

persons/institutions are putting up large hoardings and flex

boards on the side of the National Highway virtually blocking their

shop buildings from the public view. It is stated that even if the

same is removed, that will be replaced immediately thereafter, as

a result of which, the hoardings are always installed at the site. It

is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed seeking

direction to the respondents to remove the hoardings and flex

boards put up at the sides of the National Highway coming within

the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent Panchayat.

2. Learned Government Pleader who has obtained

instructions from the 3rd respondent, submits that on the filing of

the writ petition, hoardings and flex boards have all been

removed. However, counsel for the petitioners submit that the

hoardings/flex boards have been duly replaced and are continuing

even now. The factual position as canvassed by the leaned

WPC No. 2269/10
:2 :

counsel for the petitioners is not disputed by the 2nd respondent

also.

3. Admittedly, the property in question is that of the 1st

respondent. If any unauthorised hoardings or flex boards are

installed, necessarily it is for the 1st respondent to take

appropriate action in the matter. It is also directed that

respondents 2 and 3 will also render necessary assistance to the

1st respondent to carry out the aforesaid direction.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp