The High Court held it could not resolve disputed facts about the safety of an advertising hoarding under Article 226. It deferred dismantling until the Corporation hears the petitioner and decides within four weeks.
Dismantling of the structure deferred pending Corporation decisions, restricted within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931
WP(C).No. 689 of 2009(F)
------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S): ------------------------
SHIHABUDEEN.K, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O KHASIM KUNJU, RESIDING AT KALIYILIL HOUSE, MALANKADAKAM, KOLLAM-12.
BY ADVS. MR.A.X.VARGHESE, MR.A.V.JOJO.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM CORPN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.689/2009 F
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J
........................................... WP(C).NO. 689 OF 2009
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2009
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5, which is a notice requiring the dismantling of a structure stated to have been installed following Ext.P1 building permit. The tentative decision contained in Ext.P5 is that the said structure, if permitted to continue, will endanger human life. That is a question of fact. While the petitioner disputes it, the Corporation has issued the order asserting the preliminary conclusions in that regard. This means that any dispute that the petitioner has in relation to the statements in Ext.P5 has to be raised before the competent authority in the Corporation, thereby leading to an adjudication of that issue by that authority. A final decision that the Corporation may issue, may also be open to further statutory remedies. At any rate, it is not for the High Court to sit in jurisdiction under Article 226 and resolve disputed question of fact, as to whether a hoarding along the side of a road is objectionable, or is one that endangers human life or not. In such
WPC 689/2009
2
circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that Corporation has not taken further steps in view of the pendency of this writ petition, it is ordered that dismantling of the structure in question will stand deferred, until the Corporation hears the petitioner and takes a decision which shall be done within four weeks from now. Until such decision is taken and unless the decision is in favour of the petitioner, no advertisements would be exhibited on the
structure in question. Writ petition ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
lgk/24/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding the safety of an advertising hoarding under Article 226.
Whether the Corporation can defer dismantling of the structure pending hearing of the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHIHABUDEEN.K
SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
