Lalitha K Nair v. The Secretary, Karukachal Grama Panchayath; The Assistant Executive Engineer, Changanassery Sub Division; and Sujith Nair

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/12TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 12338 of 2015 (N) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-----------** **LALITHA K NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.CRK NAIR, RESIDING AT INDRANEELAM HOUSE, NEDUKKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 542.** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S. SRI.T.P.ABDUL HAMEED** **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------** **1. THE SECRETARY, KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 540.** **2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY SUB DIVISION, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **3. SUJITH NAIR, AGED 0 YEARS, S/O. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT SUNIL SADANAM, NEDUKKKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 542.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 12338 of 2015 (N) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** - **EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09/01/2015 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SECTION, KARUKACHAL.** - **EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 30/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRPHAS PERTAINING THE SIGN BOARD AND IT LOCALITY** - **EXHIBIT-P5- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 31/03/2015 FILED BY THE PETTIIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** - **R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO:A3-1293/14 DATED 27.05.2014 FROM KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.08.2013 FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2** - **R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.01.2015 FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.K-103/2010 DATED 16.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 0.01.2015 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICAITON NO.KGL-107/2014 DATED 02.03.2015 ISSUED THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.03.2015 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTERS GRIEVANCE CELL** - **R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO:K-215/15 DATED 13.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 12338 of 2015 (N) -----------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of June, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved with Exts. P2 and P3 orders issued respectively by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. The petitioner, who is conducting a petrol bunk called M/s. Indraneelam Fuels, which is on the side of Changanassery - Vazhoor road, has erected a pillar and a sign board thereon, on the side of the road, opposite to the petitioner's bunk. The allegation in the impugned orders, was that the said pillar and sign board is without the sanction of the Panchayath and the PWD and the same restricts the ingress and egress into the 3[rd] respondent's property. 2. The petitioner contends that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition the petitioner has obtained a ## **W.P.(C) No. 12338/2015** **-2-** sanction from the Panchayath, nothing is produced in the writ petition nor does the Panchayath agree to such submission. It is an admitted fact that the road, on opposite sides of which, the petrol bunk and the 3[rd] respondent's property is situated, is a State Highway and any erection made on the shoulder of the State Highway, should be with the sanction of the 2[nd] respondent, Officer of the PWD and the Panchayath. 3. The 3[rd] respondent had filed a complaint, upon which the petitioner was issued with notice and the petitioner had also filed objections pursuant to which Exts.P2 and P3 orders were passed directing removal of the pillar erected and the sign board exhibited. The petitioner's contention is that, the fact that the complaint was forwarded from the office of the Chief Minister would disclose that the action of the authorities are politically motivated. It is also contended ## **W.P.(C) No. 12338/2015** **-3-** that the petitioner was not heard before an order was passed. 4. A reading of the orders would definitely indicate that the complaint was forwarded from the office of the Chief Minister, wherein such complaints were received in pursuance to a public program initiated by the Chief Minister to redress the grievance of the citizens. The 3[rd] respondent having filed a complaint in such program, it cannot be said that the action taken on it, was politically motivated. The program was a widely publicised one; enabling citizens to raise complaints directly before the Chief Ministers office to avoid red tape. However the redressal of the same can only be through the local authorities and hence the forwarding of the 3[rd] respondents complaint to the official respondents herein. When action is taken on the same on independent enquiry the same cannot **-4-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 12338/2015** be alleged as tainted with political overtones. 5. In any event, both the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents had issued notices against the petitioner. The pillar erected and the sign board exhibited was also, admittedly, without sanction from either the 1[st] or 2[nd] respondents. It also caused obstruction to the ingress and egress of the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner had filed an objection and in the context of there being no sanction at all, there is no reason why the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity for personal hearing. The petitioner even before this Court has not produced any sanction to make the objectionable construction and display on the public road. 6. The learned Counsel for the Panchayath points out Section 209(c) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity 'Act'), which confers power on the Panchayath for removal of unathorised advertisements, **-5-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 12338/2015** when such advertisement is erected, exhibited, fixed or retained contrary to the provisions of Section 209(a) of the Act. The learned Counsel also relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in **v. Sugil Sadanandan - 2005 (4) KLT 220** , which categorically declared that even for erecting hoardings in private property, permission of the local authority is necessary. 7. In the present case, admittedly, the pillar has been erected in the public property, on the side of the State Highway, without permission from either the PWD or the Panchayath. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed, directing removal of pillar and the sign board exhibited. The petitioner is granted a months time to remove the same, failing which the 1[st] respondent and the 2[nd] respondent shall cause removal of the pillar and the sign board and shall also be entitled to recover the ## **W.P.(C) No. 12338/2015** **-6-** expenses for the same from the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 3/6/16