IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15116 of 2011(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.K.MANIKANTAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PALETTE COMMUNICATIONS, MANGALATH TOWER, PADIVATTOM ROAD, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 028. BY ADVS. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.T.R.RENJITH SRI.S.KANNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR,SC R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.15116/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17/10/2009 SIGNED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE OWNER OF BUILDING TC NO.32/1190(3) P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R18/51710/11 DATED 4/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HORDING AT ITS LOCATION. P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 8/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SHOWING REMITTANCE OF LICENCE FEE AND ADVERTISEMENT TAX FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011 BY THE PETITIONER FOR ERECTING HORDING ON BUILDING NO.32/1190(3) OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26/5/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.15116 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is engaged in the business of erection of hoardings and display of advertisements. On the strength of Ext.P1 agreement entered into between the petitioner and the concerned building owner, the petitioner has put up an advertisement board on building No.32/1190 (3) of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation . At the instance of the authorities of the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, Ext.P2 notice was served on the petitioner intimating that erection of the advertisement board in question would hamper the pilot's view while the aircraft land at the runway and that the Government of Kerala had instructed the Corporation to remove the said advertisement board. The contention of the petitioner is that he has erected the board in question with necessary permit from the Corporation and therefore, issuance of Ext.P2 notice calling the petitioner to remove the advertisement board and warning him with coercive steps including its removal, in case of his failure to do so, is illegal. According to the petitioner, he was not afforded with an opportunity of being heard before taking such a decision. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ W.P.(C) NO.15116/2011 2 Petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P2 and seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent not to proceed further to remove the advertisement board erected by the petitioner on building No.32/1190(3) of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation without letting him know the contents of the complaint allegedly made by the authorities of the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram and giving him an opportunity to explain why it should not be removed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. Admittedly, what prompted the first respondent to issue Ext.P2 notice is the complaint from the authorities of the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P3 is the photograph of the hoarding in question. The complaint is to the effect that the said advertisement board would hamper the pilot's view while aircrafts land at the runway. Such a complaint cannot be taken lightly. The usual procedure of giving notice and hearing on the issue cannot be adopted in a matter like this. Affording an opportunity to the petitioner would not, in any way, help the petitioner to establish that the pilot's view would not be hampered while landing the aircrafts at the runway even if the board in question is retained there. A scanning of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition would reveal that the petitioner is W.P.(C) NO.15116/2011 3 fully aware of the reason that prompted the first respondent to issue Ext.P2 notice. Therefore, I am of the view that this Court need only to consider whether the said reason that led to the issuance of Ext.P2 is sustainable or not. As already noticed hereinbefore, the authorities of the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram complained to the first respondent that the advertisement board in question is hampering the pilot's view while aircrafts land at the runway. Such a matter, according to me, could not have been subjected to scrutiny by the Corporation. When the Corporation rightly accepted and acted upon the complaint to avert any possible unpleasant and unfortunate incident that cannot be subjected to judicial review. The private interest of the petitioner has to give way to the large public interest in a matter like this. I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.15116/2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.15116/2011 5