The court reinforced the necessity of compliance with prior rulings regarding the installation of advertisements in public spaces.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“I. To Issue a Writ of Mandamus, direction, order directing the respondents to remove flex boards and bill boards erected by the 2nd respondent in the four bus waiting sheds near to petitioner’s house at Kayamkulam Boys High School both on the northern and eastern side, bus waiting shed at Kayamkulam-Punalur road, Park Junction and bus waiting shed at Railway over bridge, Kayamkulam forthwith.

II. To Issue a Writ of Mandamus, direction, order directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exhibit P3 within a time frame fixed by this Honorable Court and to redress the grievance ventilated by the petitioner forthwith.

III. To Issue a Writ of Mandamus, direction, order directing the respondents to ensure that no such illegal installation of flex/notice boards in the four bus waiting sheds mentioned above in future as well thereby ensuring strict compliance with the directions issued by this Honourable Court in St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church Vs. State of Kerala ( 2025 (2) KHC 435 ).

IV. To Issue such other orders and directions as this Honourable Court may deem just and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

V. To dispense with filing of English translation of documents filed in the above W.P(C).” (SIC)

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not removing the alleged illegal flex boards and bill boards erected in a premises of the Kayamkulam Municipality in violation of the principle laid down by this Court in St. Stephen’s Malankara Catholic Church v. State of Kerala [ 2025 (2) KHC 435 ].

3. A statement is filed by the 2nd respondent as directed by this Court. It will be better to extract the same:

“2. The 5 bus stops in the Kayamkulam town, which were lying without any maintenance and in a dilapidated condition. As part of the beautification of Kayamkulam town, the 2nd respondent conducted a meeting at GDM auditorium Kayamkulam which was open to the public. One AGD Gold and Diamonds and Kaipallil Jewlelers came up with the willingness to maintain the bus sheds. So four bus waiting sheds were reconstructed by the AGD gold and diamonds and one is reconstructed by Kaippallil jewellers. Even though the bus sheds were in the PWD road side, the same was maintained by the Municipal Corporation from the time of construction ie; 2005.

3. It is false that all the bus sheds were demolished and flex boards, banners and bill boards were erected. As part of town beautification all the 5 bus sheds were reconstructed painted and tiled by these shop owners, so the 2nd respondent permitted them to keep their advertisement in the bus sheds. The 2nd respondent has not permitted anything in violation of the judgment of this hon'ble court. No flex boards or banners were kept in the road causing any hindrance to the vehicles or travelers. Copy of the photograph showing the present bus shed along with the flex board and banner is produced as Annexure R2(a). Copy of the photograph showing the previous condition of the bus shed with flex board and banner is produced as Annexure R2(b). Except the paintings, banners and flex boards in the bus shed no flex boards or banners kept in the road. Now the bus sheds can be used by the public, earlier the same was not maintained and not able to use.

4. Even though Koickal Jewelers entered in to an agreement, they didn't renew the same and not maintained the bus shed. These are all done as a part of Kayamkulam Town beautification and after a joint meeting with all the respondents. Even during the tenure of the petitioner he has not done anything to maintain the bus sheds.”

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement board seen in Annexure-R2(a) is using flex. The same is against the principle laid down by this Court. If so,