Dismissed

Shareef.a. v. Secretary, Corporation of Kollam

Kerala HC24 Jun 2009WP(C)/733/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice to dismantle an advertisement board. It held that such disputes require adjudication by the competent authority, not the writ court, and directed deferment of dismantling pending a decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to show cause on the impugned notice; stay on dismantling pending consideration by competent authority.

Shareef.a. Vs Secretary, Corporation of Kollam — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 733 of 2009(K)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

--------------------------

¶9

SHAREEF.A., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUNJU MUSALIAR, KUZHIPILAKKIL HOUSE, KUREEPUZHA, RUKKU PUBLICITY, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM-3.

¶10

BY ADVS. MR.A.X.VARGHESE, MR.A.V.JOJO.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------------------

¶13

SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.733 OF 2009 K

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1: COPY OF THE	AGREEMENT DTD. 17/12/08.

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE STABILITY CERTIFICATE DTD. 28/12/08.

¶22

P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1/1/09 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J

¶28

........................................... WP(C).NO. 733 OF 2009

¶29

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2009

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner faces probable dismantling of an

¶32

advertisement board, following Ext.P3 notice issued by the Corporation, on the ground that the said board is likely to endanger human life. That allegation of the Corporation is disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner has to show cause and answer Ext.P3. The resolution of that dispute cannot be had through the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence the writ petition is ordered directing that the objections of the petitioner, as may be filed to the impugned notice, would be considered and disposed of by the competent authority in the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, pending which structure will not be dismantled and until a decision is taken as aforesaid and unless that decision is in favour of the petitioner, he shall not exhibit any advertisements of the structure in question.

¶33

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶34

lgk/24/6

Shareef.a. v. Secretary, Corporation of Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shareef.a. v. Secretary, Corporation of Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.C. Thomas Vs Secy, Block Panchayath & Anr.

Santhosh Michael M. Vs the Registrar of Births & Deaths

Jackson Anto Vs the Registrar of Births and Deaths

Gracy George and Others Vs M/S.Cvp Realtors (P) Ltd.

Shinabudheen K Vs Secretary, Corporation of Kollam.

C.K.Saradha Vs District Collector and Others