IMPORTANT POINTS
Para.3 of IRC:46-1972 (which deals with principles on advertisement control) and Para.4 (which deals with dimensions of advertisements) discuss the principles which should be applied before consent is given to the erection of advertisements on road lands or on structures adjoining the roads. They also cover the cases where advertisements on private land adjoining a road may destroy amenity or endanger public safety. As per sub-para (1) of Para.3.1.1 of IRC:46-1972, in general, advertisements should not be permitted at or within 100m of any road junction, bridge or another crossing. In urban areas, this distance may be reduced to 50m, provided there is no conflict with the requirements stated further on. Similarly, as per sub-para (6) of Para.3.1.1, in general, advertisements should not be permitted on boards, placards, cloth banners or sheets hung across a road as they distract the attention of the driver and are, therefore, hazardous; and as per sub-para (8), within right-of-way of the road.

JUDGMENT :

Since common issue is raised, both the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018:- The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 2.64 Ares of property at Kallumthazham Junction, in Sy.No.760/1/8 of Kilikolloor Village, covered by Ext.P1 tax receipt. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary action against the 6th respondent for illegal erection of flex board. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Secretary of Kollam Corporation to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 complaint dated 10.12.2018, within a time frame that this Court may consider reasonable; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to remove the flex board erected by the 6th respondent illegally, in the property of the 5th respondent. (The name of the 6th respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.5618 of 2019 is wrongly shown in the cause title of W.P. (C)No.40465 of 2018.)

2.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, on the western side of the petitioner's property there is a bit of land owned by the 5th respondent. In the said property, the respondent illegally constructed tea shop, without any licence from Kollam Corporation. Against the illegal construction, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 complaint dated 25.06.2016 before the Mayor of the Corporation. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of the report dated 20.05.2015 prepared by the concerned officer of the Corporation regarding the construction of a shop room undertaken by the 5th respondent, without obtaining any permission and in violation of the provisions under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, after demolishing the tea shop. As per Ext.P3 report, the construction undertaken by the 5th respondent is at Kallumthazham Junction, where Kollam-Shenkottai National Highway meet the Bypass Road. The document marked as Ext.P4 is a provisional order dated 28.05.2015 of the 4th respondent Secretary of the Corporation, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 , whereby the 5th respondent is directed to stop the unauthorised construction and to demolish the structure. On 09.12.2018, the 6th respondent, who is engaged in the business of erecting advertisement boards, erected a huge iron structure adjacent to the western compound wall of the petitioner's property. The petitioner and others filed complaints before Kilikolloor Police and also before the 4th respondent Secretary of the Corporation. The document marked as Ext.P5 is a complaint dated 10.12.2018 submitted by the petitioner, before 4th respondent. The document marked as Ext.P6 is the photographs of the iron structure erected by the 6th respondent to display advertisement. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 complaint dated 10.12.2018 before the 3rd respondent District Collector and thereafter, moved this Court in this writ petition seeking various reliefs.

2.2. On 12.12.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for National Highway Authority of India, representing respondents 1 and 2; the learned Government Pleader, for the 3rd respondent District Collector; and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kollam Corporation, for the th respondent Secretary, sought time for getting instructions and for filing counter, if required. This Court issued urgent notice by speed post to respondents 5 and 6. By order dated 12.12.2018, the 4th respondent was directed to ensure that no advertisement hoarding is put up by the 5th respondent in his property, without securing necessary licence in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.

2.3. The learned Standing Counsel for National Hi