Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2013 9TH SRAVANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 17699 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- PALLET COMMUNICATION, MANGALATH TOWER, DHANYA JUNCTION, VENNALA.P.O.,ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRITOR M.K.MANIKANDAN. BY ADVS.SRI.SAJIV.C.K. SRI.AJOY VENU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN”
001.
2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ADOOR, ADOOR.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 523.
3. MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ADOOR, ADOOR.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN-691 523.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.C.M.APPLIANCES PVT. LTD., K.P.TOWER, RAJIV GANDHI BY PASS ROAD, ADOOR.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.PIN”
523. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-07-2013, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 17716 OF 2013.THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 17699 of 2013 (J) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 4 7.2012. P2- PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HORDING ERECTED ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING NO. 17/1 OF ADOOR MUNICIPALITY. P3- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM ADOOR MUNICIPALITY. P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27 5.2013 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.17699 of 2013 & 17716 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July 2013 JUDGMENT
The petitioners are common in the above writ petitions. It is an advertising agency engaged in the business of installing hoardings on behalf of its customers. The petitioner is now faced with a direction by the 3rd respondent to remove the hoardings which have been installed in certain premises. This appears to be based on the decision taken by the District Road Safety Council in their meeting held on 16/04/2013. Similar orders have been passed in both writ petitions.
2. The learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. The petitioner has raised two questions. One is that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to pass any such order and secondly that before passing the order no notice had been issued to the petitioner. W.P.C.No.17699 & 17716 o”
2. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, I am of the view that since no notice has been issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the direction is liable to be set aside and can be treated only as a show cause notice. In the result, these writ petitions can be disposed of as follows: i) Ext.P4 shall be treated as a show cause notice and it is open for the petitioner to file necessary objection raising all contentions including the question of jurisdiction which shall be decided by the third respondent and appropriate orders in that regard shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii) If the third respondent feels that he has no jurisdiction to pass such an order, the files in that regard has to be placed before the appropriate competent authority for a proper decision. (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.17699 & 17716 of 2013 3