IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 15654 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.M.SALI, MANAGER, DRISYA AVERTISERS, KAVANADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CORPORATION COUNCIL, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.A.G.ANITHA, SC, FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 15654 OF 2008 L ==================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was permitted to install an advertisement board. Ext.P1 is the permit, the renewal of which was sought by Ext.P3. However, the renewal was rejected by Ext.P4. Petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P6 appeal, which is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. In the meantime, petitioner submits that the advertisement board has been dismantled by the Corporation. Thereupon, the petitioner also filed Ext.P7 before the Appellate authority seeking inter alia permission for installing the advertisement board. As orders were not passed either on Ext.P6 or Ext.P7 representations, this writ petition has been filed seeking orders for the expeditious disposal of the above. 2. Standing counsel, who entered appearance on notice, on instruction submits that the Corporation had conducted inspection and it was found that the advertisement was so huge that it was not safe to retain the same. According to them, it is only taking into account the unsafe condition of the hoarding that they decided to reject the renewal. 3. Whether it is safe to permit the petitioner to retain the advertisement board or not is a matter which the Corporation is to decide. WPC No.15654/08 :2 : On the materials placed, I am satisfied that this court will not be justified in concluding the issue one way or the other. It is seen that the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 appeal which remains undisposed of. Petitioner also refers to Ext.P7 representation which is also stated to be pending before the 2nd respondent. 4. Taking into account the above, I direct that the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts. P6 and P7, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that before orders are passed on the appeal and the representation, petitioner should also be given notice. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp