IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1775 of 2010(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- K.O.JOHNEY, S/O.PAPPACHAN, AGED 45 YEARS EDITOR AND PUBLISHER, "KERALA POLITICS", ENGLISH FORTNIGHTLY AND "NAGARAM" MALAYALAM FORTNIGHTLY, B-5, GALAXY ARCADE, SRM ROAD,KOCHI-18, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (TRAFFIC), KOCHI CITY, ERNANAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE PWD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SRI.M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KOCHI CORPORATION. R2 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.1775 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner who is stated to be a journalist and public spirited citizen has sought for directions in relation to the placing of advertisements along with traffic sign boards which according to him would impair the safety of traffic. The petitioner makes reference to Section 116(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and contends that in spite of the availability of sufficient police power with the State, the same is not being utilised. Petitioner has made Exts.P2 and P3 representations before respondents 2 and 4 respectively. Those representations were placed on 10.1.2010 and this writ petition is filed on 14.1.2010. We would think that we should not act as mere post offices to W.P.(C) No.1775 of 2010 2 forward representations filed by citizens. If the aforesaid respondents have not responded to a particular representation within a reasonable time, it may be open to the party to seek a writ of mandamus. 2. We may also note that there is nothing on record which evidences that Exts.P2 and P3 were delivered to the appropriate respondents. We are, therefore, inclined to take the view that this writ petition is premature and does not merit consideration. We also notice that in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is for the police officer concerned to formulate an opinion as to whether a particular advertisement deserves to be removed or not. This is not a matter on which the Court should prejudge the issue, particularly when the formulation of opinion is a matter left to the police. Be that as it may, the learned Senior Government Pleader very graciously states that the Road Safety Committee and the police officers are W.P.(C) No.1775 of 2010 3 always vigilant and if Exts.P2 and P3 representations are received and are pending, the respondents would consider those representations in accordance with law. Recording the above submission, this writ petition is closed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns