IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 689 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHIHABUDEEN.K, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O KHASIM KUNJU, RESIDING AT KALIYILIL HOUSE, MALANKADAKAM, KOLLAM-12. BY ADVS. MR.A.X.VARGHESE, MR.A.V.JOJO. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.689/2009 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PERMISSION GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 14/08/08. P2: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NEWLY ERECTED ADVERTISING BOARD. P3: COPY OF THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THE PERIOD OF 1/1/2009 TO 31/12/2009 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ONE MR.JACOB A.PANAMPUNNA DTD. 1/1/09. P4: COPY OF THE STABILITY CERTIFICATE DTD. 28/12/08. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 27/12/08 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/05/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 689 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5, which is a notice requiring the dismantling of a structure stated to have been installed following Ext.P1 building permit. The tentative decision contained in Ext.P5 is that the said structure, if permitted to continue, will endanger human life. That is a question of fact. While the petitioner disputes it, the Corporation has issued the order asserting the preliminary conclusions in that regard. This means that any dispute that the petitioner has in relation to the statements in Ext.P5 has to be raised before the competent authority in the Corporation, thereby leading to an adjudication of that issue by that authority. A final decision that the Corporation may issue, may also be open to further statutory remedies. At any rate, it is not for the High Court to sit in jurisdiction under Article 226 and resolve disputed question of fact, as to whether a hoarding along the side of a road is objectionable, or is one that endangers human life or not. In such WPC 689/2009 2 circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that Corporation has not taken further steps in view of the pendency of this writ petition, it is ordered that dismantling of the structure in question will stand deferred, until the Corporation hears the petitioner and takes a decision which shall be done within four weeks from now. Until such decision is taken and unless the decision is in favour of the petitioner, no advertisements would be exhibited on the structure in question. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/24/6