IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32954 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SR.FIDES THOTTAN D/O VARGHESE, AGED 56 YEARS, ADMINISTRATOR, HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTD BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD) ROADS DIVISION, KOLLAM 691001. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, KOLLAM 691001. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SECTION, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DT 691001. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32954/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT 24.6.03 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER and the 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY of the SANCTION LETTER DT 6.6.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED AGREEMENT DT 20.6.05. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF RENT EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER REQUESTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO ACCORD SANCTION FOR RENEWING THE AGREEMENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE SAID DEMAND NOTICE DT 25.11.11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32954 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, based on an agreement between herself and the 2nd respondent, a sign board of the Holy Cross Hospital was erected across Kottiyam Ottaplammoodu Road. The agreement was renewed from time to time, the last of which is Ext.P3 and the period of Ext.P3 also expired in 2010. For some reason or the other, the agreement was not renewed thereafter and the petitioner sought such renewal by making Ext.P5 request to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kerala. This letter is dated 27/10/11. Orders have not been passed on the request and while so, the Executive Engineer has issued Ext.P6 letter to the petitioner requiring them to remove the sign board in question. It is also the submission of the petitioner that instructions have been issued to the 3rd respondent for removal of the sign board. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Thus as at present, according to the petitioner, their request for renewal of the agreement evidenced by Ext.P5 is WPC No.32954/11 :2 : pending consideration of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kerala. Therefore, as at present, coercive action for removal of the sign board in question is premature. 3. In that view, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- (1) That on the production of a copy of this judgment, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kerala will pass orders on Ext.P5. This shall be done within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. (2) Until orders are passed on Ext.P5 as directed above, further action for removal of the sign board in question shall be kept in abeyance. (3) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the Executive Engineer for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp