S.Linklal v. Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/15TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 746 of 2007 (L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S):
---------------------- S.LINKLAL, PROPRIETOR, LAL ADVERTISING, MUKHATHALA KOLLAM 691 577.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENNAI.
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE TRILVANDRUM.
* ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED
3. A.M.SALI, DIRSHYA ADVERTISERS, ADHUTHIYA NAGAR, H.NO.78 KANNIMEL, KUVANAD P.O., KOLLAM.
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DTD.26/2/2007 IN IA.2583/07. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASG R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ
WP(C).No. 746 of 2007 (L) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- P1:
COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1/9/06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER P1(A): COPY OF THE SITE SKETCH P2:
COPY OF THE COVER SHOWING THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY INDUSTUD BANK BY POST P3:
COPY OF THE COVER SHOWING A LETTER FROM MOMS PVT.LTD. ERNAKULAM SERVED TO THE PETITIONER BY COURIER P4:
COPY OF THE ANNEXURE 2 DATED 16/10/06 P5:
COPY OF THE ANNEXURE 3 DATED 29/12/06.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES -------------------------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/10/2006 ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/10/2006 ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/12/2006 / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
--------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.746 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed an application for permission to erect a hoarding as per Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, despite the feasibility report submitted as early as in September, 2006 no decision was taken by the Railways on Ext.P1 and it was understood that steps were being taken to allow the space to a stranger. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Railways, referring to the facts and figures and the petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit as well, producing some additional documents as Exts.P2 to P5. When the matter came up for consideration on 13.09.2007, it was submitted from the part of the Railways that, if the petitioner was actually interested, he might remit the money as required under Annexure-I and in that case he would also be permitted to display hoarding in the site as specified in Annexure-I. Accordingly, necessary direction was given by this
W.P.(C) No.746 of 2007 Court by passing an interim order in the following terms: "After hearing the case at some length, counsel for the Railways seeks time to file an additional Counter Affidavit to the amended writ petition filed by the petitioner. In paragraph 10 of the statement filed by the Railways, it is stated as follows:
'If the petitioner is interested, he may remit the money as required under Annexure-I and in that case he would also be permitted to display a hoarding in the site as specified in Annexure-I.'
Learned counsel confined that the Railways are still willing to comply with the above commitment in the statement.
Accordingly, there will be an interim order that if the petitioner makes remittance of the amount as specified in Annexure-I within ten days from today, he will be permitted to put up a hoarding in the site as specified in Annexure-I. On remittance of the amount, necessary permission will be given within one week."
3. There is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner does not have any further grievance in view of the interim order passed by this Court, granting necessary relief. In the said circumstances, the interim order is made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp