IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 909 of 2010(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K.JOSEPH, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE, POOKKATTU HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU P.O., TRUSTEE OF ST.MARY'S JACOBIT SYRIAN CATHEDRAL, NERCHAPPALLI, RACKAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, MR.P.P. BIJU. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS) DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON 11/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.909/2010-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 22/08/2009 TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/09/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 27/09/2009. EXT.P.4: TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NAME BOARD. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 31/12/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.909 of 2010-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the trustee of St. Mary’s Jacobite Syrian Cathedral, Nerchapally, Rackad, Muvattupuzha. He is aggrieved by Ext.P4 communication issued by the respondent herein directing to remove an arch constructed across the P.W.D. Road. 2. In August, 2009 the petitioner submitted an application for permission to erect a name board on the side of the National Highway at Ambalampady junction. According to the petitioner, the properties on the side of the said road belonging to the Church and the Church is paying land tax also. Ext.P2 is the copy of the permission granted and an agreement was also entered into with the respondent which is produced as Ext.P3. 3. What is pointed out in Ext.P5 is that the arch has been constructed without any permission and the only permission was to erect a name board. The petitioner has produced the photographs of the arch as Ext.P4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no obstruction either to the vehicular traffic or to the pedestrians, going by the construction. wpc 909/2010 2 4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that such a construction was not permitted by the respondent and what is permitted is only to put a sign board having measurement of 3.2m x 0.60 m. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that actually the permission enables the petitioner to construct an Arch itself. It is pointed out that the properties of the Church are situated on either side of the road. These contentions are opposed by the learned Govt. Pleader also. 6. It is further pointed out that before issuing Ext.P5, no notice was issued to the petitioner and if that be so, the real facts could have been pointed out before the respondent itself. Evidently, Ext.P5 is issued without a notice. 7. What is complained of now is that for the construction of the Arch, there was no permission. Even going by Ext.P2, such a construction has not been permitted. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the construction does not violate Ext.P2, cannot be sustained. But if the petitioner seeks for such a permission for construction of the Arch itself, the respondent can consider the same in accordance with law. 8. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 will be treated as a notice and the petitioner will appear before the respondent and file appropriate application also in the matter within three weeks. Thereafter the respondent wpc 909/2010 3 will communicate the decision without further delay. Status-quo as on today will be maintained till a fresh decision is taken by the respondent in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/