Kerala High Court
V.K.Aneesh vs Executive Engineer on 12 June, 2025
1
WP(C) NO.31503 OF 2019 2025:KER:41397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO.31503 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
V.K.ANEESH
AGED 37 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR, DREAMS MEDIA MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
POOZHIKKADU P.O., PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
SHRI.MUHAMMED JANAISE V.
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SHRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J
SHRI.MOHAMED MUSTHAFA A.K.
SMT.HELEN P.A.
SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
RESPONDENTS:
1 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES), PATHANAMTHITTA
DIVISION,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 101.
2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (RAODS AND BRIDGES) PATHANAMTHITTA
SUB DIVISION,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 101.
3 SECRETARY,
PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., 689 101.
BY ADV SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM PACHAYIL
SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) NO.31503 OF 2019 2025:KER:41397
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition
pointing out that, pursuant to an agreement entered into with
the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was permitted to operate
the Traffic Signal at Aban Junction, Pathanamthitta. The
petitioner further points out with reference to Clause No.6 of
Ext.P1 agreement that he was also permitted to display
advertisements from third parties, after collecting the
necessary rent. The petitioner says that, on the basis of the
agreement at Ext.P1, the petitioner has been operating traffic
signals and also displaying advertisements. The petitioner
further contends that when steps were taken to remove the
signal lights from the side of the respondents herein, he was
before this Court in an earlier round of litigation, leading the
issue of Ext.P4 judgment, wherein this Court has specifically
noticed that the stand taken that insofar as no overbridge is
being constructed as planned, the traffic signal system has to
WP(C) NO.31503 OF 2019 2025:KER:41397
be continued as such. However, the petitioner complains that
Ext.P10 was issued by the 1st respondent, informing the
petitioner that the advertisements on the traffic signal
requires to be removed, with reference to certain directions
issued by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27011
of 2012. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has
filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P10
issued by the 1st respondent herein.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as Sri.E.G.Gorden, learned Senior Government
Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.
3. The short issue that arises for consideration in this
writ petition is as regards the directions contained in Ext.P10
order issued by the 1st respondent, as above. A reading of
Ext.P10 order would show that the same has been issued with
reference to certain directions issued on 21.02.2013 by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27011 of 2017. The
Division Bench of this Court has issued the afore directions
WP(C) NO.31503 OF 2019 2025:KER:41397
with reference to a public interest litigation filed, seeking
appropriate directions for removal of obstructions in the roads
and road margins, etc. Considering the afore, the Division
Bench of this Court noticed that there are a large number of
unauthorised advertisements/hoardings in National/State
highways, which would ultimately block the line of sight of the
drivers of the vehicles and also distract them and also noticed
that traffic blocks may occur when such boards collapse on
the road. In such circumstances, this Court noticed the stand
taken by the Government in their counter affidavit with
reference to the appropriate steps being taken to remove
those advertisements/sign boards, which are causing
obstruction, as above.
4. It is with reference to the afore, the contents of
Ext.P10 have to be noticed. This Court notices that Ext.P10
admits the existence of a traffic signal at Aban Junction,
Pathanamthitta. The Division Bench of this Court directed the
removal of the boards, which obstructed or stood in the line
WP(C) NO.31503 OF 2019 2025:KER:41397
of sight of drivers. In the case at hand, a reference to Ext.P12
photograph produced by the petitioner of the traffic signal in
question would show that the advertisement board is placed
not in the direct line of sight of the driver but on a high level
of the direct line of sight. When that be the case, I am of the
opinion that the directions contained in Ext.P10, with
reference to the removal of the advertisement boards from
the traffic signal, are only to be set aside. This Court also
notices that the petitioner has already been permitted by the
3rd respondent Municipality to display the advertisements
from third parties on the signal light, after collecting the
necessary rent. In such circumstances, insofar as the
petitioner has been solely acting on the basis of Ext.P1
agreement, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is only to
be permitted to display the advertisements on the traffic
signal light, as above. Though the learned Government
Pleader states that the petitioner has not obtained the
necessary permission from the statutory authorities, I notice
WP(C) NO.31503 OF 2019 2025:KER:41397
that the petitioner has been proceeding on the basis of Ext.P1
agreement. If any other statutory permissions are required,
I make it clear that the petitioner can obtain such clearances
from the statutory authorities within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
I also take note of the order dated 21.11.2019, issued by this
Court, while admitting the writ petition, ordering status quo
to be maintained. The afore order is being extended from
time to time. In other words, the petitioner has been
continuing to display the advertisements on the traffic signal
for the past more than five years. It is all the more reason to
interdict the directives contained in Ext.P10.
With the above observations, the writ petition (civil)
would stand disposed of.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
Skk//12.06.2025
WP(C) NO.31503 OF 2019 2025:KER:41397
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.31503 OF 2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DAD
18.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER DATED 30.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE
COURT IN WPC NO. 5840/2019 DATED 27.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED
21.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 20.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED
07.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
30.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATED 25-10-2018.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
ADVERTISEMENT BOARDS.
EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING DISPLAY
ADVERTISEMENT DATED NIL.
