IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20248 of 2008(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.M.SALAM, PROPRIETOR, AEM STEEL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY MS.C.K.SHERIN, ADVOCATE. MS.P.USHAKUMARI, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 49, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, ERNAKULAM. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. BY MR.V.M.KURIAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R5. MS.N. SUDHA DEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20248/2008 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24/5/2004 IN W.P.(C) 24136/2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT. P2 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 22.6.2007 IN W.A.No.1040/2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20248 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the proprietor of AEM Steel House, Muvattupuzha. The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 not to allow organizations or political parties to construct stages or hold public meetings in front of the petitioner's shop in such a manner as to block access to the petitioner's shop completely. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.24136/2003. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the judgment in the said writ petition. Therein this Court issued the following direction: “I therefore, direct the Municipality to take appropriate follow up action and publish notice inviting attention of the general public to such prohibition. Any violation should be suitably dealt with by taking steps for prosecuting the offenders, appropriately.” W.P.(C) No.20248/2008 2 3. The Writ Appeal filed against Exhibit P1 was rejected by Exhibit P2. It is complained that in spite of the above directions, obstructions are being repeated and even though the petitioner has complained several times, permissions have been granted to conduct public meetings denying access to the petitioner's shop. 4. The 5th respondent has filed a statement pointing out that the road adjoining the business establishment is vested with the Public Works Department. It is pointed out that the 5th respondent has not given permission to any political party or other organizations to put up temporary stages for conducting public meetings in front of the petitioner's business premises. It is further pointed out that the 4th respondent is also vested with necessary power to redress the grievance voiced by the petitioner. 5. The directions issued by this Court in Exhibit P1 judgment have become final. Therefore, the respondents will have to comply with the same and any violation of the same which results in prejudice to the petitioner cannot be supported also. W.P.(C) No.20248/2008 3 In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to see that when permissions are granted to conduct public meetings, they will strictly abide by the directions issued in Exhibit P1 judgment to see that the same will not block the entry to the petitioner's shop and cause any hindrance to the public. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of Exhibit P1 judgment before the 4th respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp