IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28107 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.JAYACHANDRAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.JAYCEE ADS PT.LTD., KANIKA, KUZHIYAM, CHEMBAKKANADU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI-1. 2. OFFICER IN CHARGE OF HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN-11. 3. PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, 29/1298 A, MANGALYA VALIYA MADOM, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682019. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 5. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, COCHIN-11. BY GOVT. PLEADER DILEEP MOHAN BY ASG SRI. TP.M. IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28107 OF 2010(K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 2. According to the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P2 agreement that he had entered into with the National Highway Authorities he had set up a bus shelter at Vyttila Junction in Ernakulam. It is stated that he also executed Ext.P4 agreement with the Corporation, on the strength of which he is displaying advertisement Boards. Subsequently he was issued Ext.P5 notice, describing himself as an unauthorized occupant and requiring him to remove the bus shelter and the advertisements displayed. As per Ext.P5 the petitioner ought to have filed his reply within 3 days of service of notice. Petitioner submits that for reasons which were beyond his control, the reply could be filed only on 7.9.2010. Accordingly before filing of the reply on 31.8.2010, Ext.P8 order was issued requiring the petitioner to remove the bus shelter and the advertisement Boards on the basis that the same is an WPC.No.28107 /2010 :2 : unauthorized occupation. As a result of all this, petitioner is now compelled to remove the bus shelter and advertisement Boards. It is in these circumstances challenging Ext.P5 notice and Ext.P8 proceedings the writ petition is filed. 3. I heard the standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 who sought to justify Exts.P5 and P8. Irrespective of the justifications, fact remains that before Ext.P8 was considered petitioner could not file his reply to Ext.P5 notice. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner I am satisfied that the delay in filing Ext.P6 reply was not willful and were for reasons beyond the petitioner's control. 4. In that view of the matter I am of the view that the 3rd respondent should consider Ext.P5 notice afresh, in the light of Ext.P6 objection filed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. 5. That the 3rd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, affording him an opportunity of hearing and pass fresh orders on Ext.P5 duly adverting to Ext.P6 reply filed by them. This shall be WPC.No.28107 /2010 :3 : done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. In the meantime, it is directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 referred to above shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/