Unauthorized structures on public property require necessary permissions, and local authorities are empowered to enforce removal without prior personal hearings in the absence of valid approvals.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with Exts. P2 and P3 orders issued respectively by the 1st and 2nd respondents. The petitioner, who is conducting a petrol bunk called M/s. Indraneelam Fuels, which is on the side of Changanassery - Vazhoor road, has erected a pillar and a sign board thereon, on the side of the road, opposite to the petitioner's bunk. The allegation in the impugned orders, was that the said pillar and sign board is without the sanction of the Panchayath and the PWD and the same restricts the ingress and egress into the 3rd respondent's property.

2. The petitioner contends that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition the petitioner has obtained a sanction from the Panchayath, nothing is produced in the writ petition nor does the Panchayath agree to such submission. It is an admitted fact that the road, on opposite sides of which, the petrol bunk and the 3rd respondent's property is situated, is a State Highway and any erection made on the shoulder of the State Highway, should be with the sanction of the 2nd respondent, Officer of the PWD and the Panchayath. 3. The 3rd respondent had filed a complaint, upon which the petitioner was issued with notice and the petitioner had also filed objections pursuant to which Exts.P2 and P3 orders were passed directing removal of the pillar erected and the sign board exhibited. The petitioner's contention is that, the fact that the complaint was forwarded from the office of the Chief Minister would disclose that the action of the authorities are politically motivated. It is also contended that the petitioner was not heard before an order was passed.

4. A reading of the orders would definitely indicate that the complaint was forwarded from the office of the Chief Minister, wherein such complaints were received in pursuance to a public program initiated by the Chief Minister to redress the grievance of the citizens. The 3rd respondent having filed a complaint in such program, it cannot be said that the action taken on it, was politically motivated. The program was a widely publicised one; enabling citizens to raise complaints directly before the Chief Ministers office to avoid red tape. However the redressal of the same can only be through the local authorities and hence the forwarding of the 3rd respondents complaint to the official respondents herein. When action is taken on the same on independent enquiry the same cannot be alleged as tainted with political overtones.

5. In any event, both the 1st and 2nd respondents had issued notices against the petitioner. The pillar erected and the sign board exhibited was also, admittedly, without sanction from either the 1st or 2nd respondents. It also caused obstruction to the ingress and egress of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner had filed an objection and in the context of there being no sanction at all, there is no reason why the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity for personal hearing. The petitioner even before this Court has not produced any sanction to make the objectionable construction and display on the public road.

6. The learned Counsel for the Panchayath points out Section 209(c) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act , 1994 (for brevity 'Act'), which confers power on the Panchayath for removal of unathorised advertisements, when such advertisement is erected, exhibited, fixed or retained contrary to the provisions of Section 209(a) of the Act. The learned Counsel also relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court inSugil v. Sadanandan - 2005 (4) KLT 220 , which categorically declared that even for erecting hoardings in private property, permission of the local authority is necessary.

7. In the present case, admittedly, the pillar has been erected in the public property, on the side of the State Highway, without permission from either the PWD or the Panchayath. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed, directing removal of pillar and th