Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harish Vasudevan, J
VIJU – Appellant
Versus
CHIEF ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. visual pollution affects aesthetics and tourism. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. public spaces are often neglected and obstructed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. prior judgments recognized the problem but failed to enforce remediation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. government actions and court directives aim to regulate illegal installations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. judgment consolidates prior orders reinforcing legal responsibilities for unauthorized installations. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT
Rarely, if not ever, has 'Visual Pollution' and “Destination Aesthetics”– so vital to tourism – seriously, if not at all, engaged the attention of the Authorities in Kerala. These concepts are widely used to describe the compounded effects of disorder, excess and clutter of various objects and graphics in the landscape; and the inevitable corollary of lack of visual appeal and aesthetics.
2. While many parts of the World have awoken to the pernicious effects of “Visual Pollution” - which, in its most simplistic connotation, means the impairment of one's ability to enjoy
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
