IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1134 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.ZAKEER HUSSAIN, KOIKKAL VEEDU, KRISHNAPURAM, KARTHIKAPALLI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM - 690 502. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADV.MR.K.HARILAL, S.C. R2-R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1134 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 9th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Not admitted. Adv.Mr.K.Harilal, S.C. takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent-Municipality. Mr.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, Govt. Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 and 3. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner who installed 8 sodium vapour lamps along with his sign board at Kayamkulam Junction on N.H.47 on the basis of an agreement executed by him with the Municipality pursuant to Ext.P1 permission of the 2nd respondent. On 7.12.2007 he was issued with Ext.P4 notice by the Secretary of the Municipality wherein it is alleged that the lamps are not working properly and that the Executive Engineer has enquired of the Municipality whether the lamps are necessary at all at the places where they are presently installed. To Ext.P4, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 reply to the Secretary of the Municipality. The case of the petitioner is that after Ext.P5 reply was submitted, the Municipality has not taken any action and presently there is no threat from the Municipality regarding the lamps and the sign boards installed by the petitioner. The threat presently is from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 W.P.C.No.1134/08 - 2 - representation to the 2nd respondent also. 3. Considering the averments in the Writ Petition and the submissions addressed before me by Mr.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Harilal, Standing Counsel for the Municipality and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of issuing the following directions: The 1st respondent-Municipality will ensure that the lamps installed by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 and the agreement referred to therein are working properly. The 2nd respondent is directed to take up Ext.P6, issue notice to the petitioner and then decide Ext.P6. Once Ext.P6 is decided by the 2nd respondent, the decision will be communicated to the petitioner. Till such time as decision on Ext.P6 is communicated to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, no action will be taken either by the 1st respondent or by the 2nd respondent for removing the lamps and the sign boards installed by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No.1134/08 - 3 -