VIMAL ARAKKAL Vs. CORPORATION OF COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT . P5 notice issued by the Corporation of Cochin dated 17.8.2004 has been subjected to challenge. The Corporation had noticed that an advertisement board erected in Sy. No. 34/1 of Ernakulam Village was unauthorised and since according to them it also posed a danger to the life and properties of general public, it was required to be removed. A deadline of three days had been given for such follow up action. In case of non compliance, the Corporation was proposing to remove it at the risk and cost of the offenders. By virtue of the interlocutory orders passed, the operation of the order has been kept suspended. Reference had been made in Ext. P5 to an application submitted by the petitioner dated 5.3.2004, and it stood rejected thereby.

(2.) EXT . P5 is addressed to M/s. Siyad Koker and Vimal Arakkal. Sri. Vimal Arakkal is the petitioner herein. According to him, he is running the business of putting up Hoardings as part of advertising and leasing it out to various parties on commercial basis. He referred to an agreement made by him with Mr. Siyad Koker, whereunder the latter had consented for putting up display board at the southern end of his property, described in more detail in Exts.P1 and P2 agreements. According to the petitioner, authorised as above, and with expert assistance, he had proceeded. Structurally, it was sound in every respect. Adequate measures of protection had also been secured for any loss that may occur because of the structure. It is claimed that after the erection, an application for putting up an advertisement was made to the Corporation. An advertisement also was placed on the board, which the petitioner submits is not an objectionable conduct. Because of unhealthy competition, the Corporation had been misdirected, and arbitrarily the impugned notice had been issued. He describes the conduct as one without legal authority.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation and parties had made available further materials as well before me, when the matter was being gone into. Especially, the Corporation has placed before me Resolution No. 53 dated 9.9.2004 passed by the Council, and submits that at least as of now every installation of hoarding was to comply with the regulations so prescribed, whether they be existing ones or were to be installed in future.