Dismissed

M/S. Concord Advertising v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2011WP(C)/6163/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for the removal of an unauthorized hoarding installed by third persons at a site where the petitioner was permitted to install an advertisement board under an agreement with the Public Works Department. The State submitted that boundary demarcation was pending due to disputes over property nature. The court directed the authorities to complete further action w

What did the court decide?

Direct to complete action within six weeks and give effect to the agreement between the parties.

M/S. Concord Advertising Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 6163 of 2011(U)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

M/S.CONCORD ADVERTISING, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K.J.OSWIN, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAGHUNANDANA MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., P.W.D., SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.PIN-695 001

¶13

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROADS DIVISION, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 018.

¶14

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROADS SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 018

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C)NO.6163/2011

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7/5/2010.

¶22

P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/12/2010.

¶23

P3 COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 10/12/2010

¶24

P4 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10/12/2010.

¶25

P5 COPY OF THE SHOWING UNAUTHORISED ENCROACHMENT

¶26

P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3/1/2011.

¶27

P7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11/1/2011.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 6163 OF 2011

¶34

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2011

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Ext.P4 is an agreement between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent wherein he has been permitted to install advertisement board of the sizes specified therein, near the Pai Co. show room in the M.G.Road, Ernakulam. Clause 10 of the agreement provides that PWD will take necessary action to remove all unauthorized advertisements installed in the place from time to time. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the site in question there is an unauthorized hoarding installed by third persons and in spite of asking for its removal the hoarding is not removed. It is in these circumstances this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for removal of the hoarding, in the place allotted to the petitioner.

¶37

On behalf of the respondents the learned Government Pleader submits that after the agreement was

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 6163 OF 2011

¶39

:2 :

¶40

signed, the petitioner made a complaint in this behalf and that the same was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police on 11.1.2011. It is also stated that when steps were taken, a contention was raised by third parties that the hoarding in question was installed, not in the PWD puramboke, but in a private property and that therefore on 22.7.2011, the Taluk Surveyor was asked to fix the boundary of the PWD puramboke. It is stated that on that basis notice was issued to a person by name Prakash Pai requiring for removal of the hoarding in question. That was also objected contending that the hoarding is in the private property. It is stated that again notice was issued by the Tahsildar for fixation of boundary and that for further action, report is awaited. It is also submitted that similar objections have been raised elsewhere in the city also and that to settle the dispute in question at least one month's time is required.

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 6163 OF 2011

¶42

:3 :

¶43

From the above submissions made by the

¶44

Government Pleader it is clear that when complaint was made by the petitioner, steps have been taken and that in view of the disputes raised, property is being surveyed and demarcated, for taking further action in the matter.

¶45

Therefore I direct that further action in the

¶46

matter be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and that on the basis, Ext.P4 agreement be given effect to as agreed to between the parties.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

ul/-

¶49

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE [true copy] P.S. to Judge

M/S. Concord Advertising v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Concord Advertising v. State of Kerala

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

Kerala Institute Co-Operative Management Vs Mr.K.Shreekrishnakumar

Manojkumar.N.R and Another Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer & Others

A.Abdul Kharim Vs State of Kerala and Others

Vijayamma Vs C.S.Mohanan Pillai

P.L.Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Anish Vs District Collector, Pathanamthitta and