IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 4592 of 2008(V) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.K.FAISAL ,S/O. KATHEESU, ACHIKKOTTA KUNNUMMAL,P.O. EZHILODE, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SMT.PRIYA RAMESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,N.H.DIVISION KANNUR. 2. CHERUTHAZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP, BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O. MANDOOR, KANNUR DT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 4592 OF 2008 V ==================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2. It is seen that the petitioner had constructed a building on the side of the Kannur-Payyannur National Highway. When he made an application to the 2nd respondent for numbering the building, the 2nd respondent sought no objection from the 1st respondent and in reply thereto, Ext.P2 has been issued. In Ext.P2, the 1st respondent has stated that going by the present guidelines, clearance between the highway and the building should be 5 metres and as the actual clearance left is only 3.63 metres, No objection certificate can be granted subject to an undertaking by the petitioner that he will remove the construction as and when required. It is on account of this condition imposed in Ext.P2 that this writ petition is filed challenging the same. 2. When the matter came up for orders on 8/2/2008, the case was adjourned with direction to the learned Government pleader to obtain instructions as to whether there is any statutory WPC 4592/08 :2 : sanction for clearance of 5 metres which has been imposed. Learned Government Pleader has made available before me a communication issued by the Chief Engineer to all the Executive Engineers including the 1st respondent requiring them to ensure that 5 metres clearance should be strictly enforced for any type of construction on the road side under High Way Protection Act. A reading of the aforesaid communication dated 14/7/06 discloses that it does not make reference to any statutory provision and the learned Government Pleader also could not point out any statutory provision enabling issue of such an order. If that be so, the condition imposed by the 1st respondent in Ext.P5 also has to be held as one bereft of any statutory support. Therefore, the condition imposed for granting NOC that the petitioner should give an undertaking to remove the construction falling within 5 metre clearance cannot be sustained. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 to the extend it directs the petitioner to give an undertaking that he will demolish the building, if and when required. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp