Trossy Jayan J vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 10214 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944

                                WP(C) NO. 8560 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

               TROSSY JAYAN J
               AGED 45 YEARS
               PUNARJENI AMMA VEEDU, SRI. NARAYANA SANNYASI MADAM, VARKALA,
               PIN-695 141

               BY ADVS.
               V.PREMCHAND
               SURYA MOHAN P.



RESPONDENTS:

     1         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
               COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 043

     2         THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
               PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, RAOD SUB DIVISION, ATTINGAL,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 001

     3         THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
               PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROAD SUB DIVISION, ATTINGAL,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 101

               SMT.PARVATHY - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2022,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 8560 OF 2022

                                      2




                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a Charitable Trust and they seek

that a sign board to their premises be allowed to be installed on an

apposite place in the main road leading to their property.

2. I notice that the request of the petitioner, as made by them

through Ext.P3 before the 3rd respondent - Assistant Executive

Engineer, has been rejected through Ext.P4, merely saying that no

such boards can be allowed to be installed on a public road.

3. I am of the firm view that Ext.P4 is irreproachable and that

the 3rd respondent has acted well within his powers and in compliance

with the orders of this Court issued earlier with respect to these

aspects.

4. However, since Sri.V.Premchand - learned counsel for the

petitioner, says that his client will be able to point out a suitable place

to the 3rd respondent for putting up the sign board, which will not be in

violation of any of the orders of this Court and which will not in any

manner cause obstruction to any person or the public. I am of the view

that such an opportunity must be reserved to them.

Resultantly, confirming Ext.P4, I allow the petitioner to approach

the 3rd respondent with a further plea and if the said Authority is to

find that a sign board can be allowed to be fixed in a place in complete WP(C) NO. 8560 OF 2022

compliance with the directions of this Court earlier, then it be so

considered and necessary action completed.

Needless to say, if the 3 rd respondent is to find that no such sign

board can be allowed on account of the application of law and in

compliance with the directions of this Court, then necessary orders

will be issued rejecting it; however, citing the reasons for the same.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 8560 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8560/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 03.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, SOCIETIES

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION DATED NIL ISSUED BY BOARD OF CONTROL FOR ORPHANAGES AND OTHER CHARTIBALE HOMES

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED NIL BEFORE THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.12.2021 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH REVEALING THE PROPOSED SPORT WHERE THE NOTICE BOARD IS SOUGHT TO BE INSTALLED

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH REVEALING THE PROPOSED SPORT WHERE THE NOTICE BOARD IS SOUGHT TO BE INSTALLED

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH REVEALING THE PROPOSED SPORT WHERE THE NOTICE BOARD IS SOUGHT TO BE INSTALLED

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS LETTER DATED 05.11.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE PUNARJENI CHARITABLE SOCIETY