Nazeema Shahudeen vs The District Colector
2021 Latest Caselaw 17166 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
     FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 3162 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          NAZEEMA SHAHUDEEN,AGED 53 YEARS,W/O. SHAHUDEEN, SHINU
          COTTAGE, PAYYACODE, OYOOR P.O, POOYAPALLY, KOLLAM-691
          510

          BY ADV SAJU J PANICKER


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLECTOR
          CIVIL STATION P.O, KOLLAM-691 013.

    2     THE SECRETARY,POOYAPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POOYAPALLY,
          OYOOR P.O, KOLLAM -691 510

    3     ASSISTANT ENGINEER,PWD ROADS SECTION,
          EZHUKONE P.O, KOLLAM-691 505.

    4     SAMAD,AGED 45 YEARS,S/O. NAZARUDEEN, MELEKKIL VEEDU,
          MAKRANA BUILDING, OYOOR P.O, KOLLAM-691 510.
          (CORRECTED)


          (THE NAME OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS
          'M.N.SUNIL' INSTEAD OF 'SAMAD' AS PER ORDER DATED
          23.3.2021 IN I.A.1/2021 IN WP(C)3162/2021.)

          BY ADV SMT.BINDU SREEKUMAR
          SPL.GP SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3162 OF 2021
                                  2



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the erection of

an advertisement board by the 4 th respondent,

allegedly in road purampoke and adjoining property

of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the

board obstructs the passage of light and air to the

house of the petitioner.

2. In spite of service of notice on the 4 th

respondent, there is no appearance. I have heard the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel

for the 2nd respondent panchayath.

3. Ext P4 communication was issued by panchayath

to the petitioner. From Ext.P4 it appears that the

issue was earlier resolved on the intervention of

the panchayath whereunder the 4 th respondent had

undertaken to remove the board in question. The

undertaking was not honoured by the 4 th respondent, WP(C) NO. 3162 OF 2021

alleges the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted

Ext P6 representation before the 2 nd respondent

raising his grievance and the same is pending

consideration. It would be sufficient if the 2 nd

respondent takes appropriate action thereon.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass

appropriate orders on Ext P6 representation, with

due notice to and after hearing the petitioner and

4th respondent.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE vdv WP(C) NO. 3162 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3162/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.07.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.01.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 10.10.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ADVERTISEMENT BOARD.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.01.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.