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. 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 Highway Authority of India filed a statement on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, wherein it has been stated that Kallumthazham-Kollam Bypass road is being maintained by the Government of Kerala through its concerned Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department, National Highway Division, and the National Highway Authority of India has no authority or jurisdiction over that stretch. Therefore, action for eviction of the encroachment on public road, if any, has to be taken by the Government of Kerala and that, National Highway Authority of India has no role in the matter. Therefore, action for eviction of the encroachment on public road, if any, has to be taken by the Government of Kerala and that, National Highway Authority of India has no role in the matter. On 21.2.2019, this Court allowed I.A.No.2 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to delete respondents 1 and 2 from the party array, at the risk and cost of the petitioner. 2.4. A statement has been filed by the 4th respondent Secretary of Kollam Corporation, wherein it has been stated that the Corporation has given permission on 13.07.2018 to one Muhammed Salih to erect advertisement board in the property of Abdul Vahab and Subaida Beevi, in Sy.No.594/6, Block No.15 of Mangad Village, which is situated on the northern boundary of the petitioner's property, as per the existing rules. When renovation work on the existing building was carried out in the property of Abdul Vahab, the Corporation issued a stop memo under subsection (1) of Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act. But, as per the assessment register of the Corporation, the said building is assigned with building No.KP.XI/550, which is having a plinth area of 12 sq.meter and tax is being paid. Therefore, the Corporation did not take any further action based on that stop memo. Permission to erect advertisement board of 6.09 x 9.13 meter size was granted based on the certificate issued by the Structural Engineer, subject to the conditions in the permit. Thereafter, the permit holder erected the pillar and frame. But, flex board has not been placed till date. 2.5. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that, the petitioner produced no document to prove that he is in possession of any property near the property in which the advertisement board has been erected or that, he is residing in its vicinity. The petitioner, who is residing about 6 kilometers away from the property has no cause of action to file this writ petition. The 6th respondent would contend that he had erected advertisement board in the property of the respondent, on the strength of Ext.R6(a) permission obtained from the 4th respondent Secretary of the Corporation, on 13.07.2018. Ext.R6(b) is the site plan and location sketch approved by the 4th respondent. Ext.R6(c) is the Structural Stability Certification obtained from an approved consultant of the 4th respondent Corporation, on 15.02.2018. Ext.R6(b) is the site plan and location sketch approved by the 4th respondent. Ext.R6(c) is the Structural Stability Certification obtained from an approved consultant of the 4th respondent Corporation, on 15.02.2018. Ext.R6(d) is a copy of the insurance policy taken on 06.12.2018 for the advertisement board. On 01.01.2018, the 6th respondent had entered into Ext.R6(e) agreement with the 5th respondent and his wife Subaida Beevi, who is the owner of the land. Originally, the entire land in the locality belonged to the grand father of the 5th respondent. Later, those properties were partitioned. The 5th respondent got 22 cents of land in which he constructed a saw mill and 9 shop rooms. For the construction of Kollam Bypass the 1st respondent acquired 15 cents of land of the 5th respondent, along with 8 shop rooms, for a total sum of Rs.3,90,000/-. Out of the remaining 7 cents, 4 cents was sold to one Muniyappa, who later sold it to the petitioner. The 5th respondent is having the balance extent of 3 cents. The erection of hoarding is in the aforesaid 3 cents of land. In the remaining land, an old building with shop No.KP.XI/550 is existing, which was numbered by the erstwhile Kilikolloor Grama Panchayat. The said Panchayat merged with the 4th respondent Corporation, in the year 2002. However, the building number remained the same. A copy of the building tax receipt dated 20.09.2016 is placed on record as Ext.R6(f). The 4th respondent issued Ext.P4 provisional order, without verifying the files. Later, after verifying the files, the 4th respondent dropped further proceedings in Ext.P4. 2.6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent, producing therewith Ext.P8 photographs of the illegal constructions made by the 6th respondent. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has stated that, as per Ext.R6(b) site plan and location sketch approved by the 4th respondent, the 6th respondent has to erect advertisement board on the centre of the property in question. The newly opened Kallumthazham Bypass starting from Kollam-Shenkottai National Highway lies north-south direction and Kollam-Shenkottai National Highway at Kallumthazham junction lies east-west direction. The directions are wrongly shown in Ext.R6(b) site plan and location sketch. As per Ext.R6(b) the tower has to be erected 4.50 meters from the proposed National Highway and 1.50 meters from the petitioner's compound wall. The newly opened Kallumthazham Bypass starting from Kollam-Shenkottai National Highway lies north-south direction and Kollam-Shenkottai National Highway at Kallumthazham junction lies east-west direction. The directions are wrongly shown in Ext.R6(b) site plan and location sketch. As per Ext.R6(b) the tower has to be erected 4.50 meters from the proposed National Highway and 1.50 meters from the petitioner's compound wall. The 6th respondent erected advertisement board not according to Ext.R6(b) and in violation of the building rules. Therefore, the Corporation has to remove the illegal constructions made by the 6th respondent. 3. W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019:-This writ petition is filed by the 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018, who is engaged in the field of erecting advertisement hoardings, who is stated to be the Secretary of Kollam District Advertisers' Association. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that he has every right to erect the advertisement board as envisaged in Ext.P6 order of this Court dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018. He has also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 notice dated 09.12.2018 issued by the nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Kilikolloor. The documents marked in this writ petition as Exts.P1 to P5 are already on record as Exts.R6(a) to R6(e), along with the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018. The document marked as Ext.P7 is a copy of that counter affidavit and Ext.P8 is the statement filed by Kollam Corporation in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018. Ext.P9 is a notice issued by the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, whereby the petitioner has been directed to stop erection of flex board on the property of the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018. 3.1. On 25.02.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Corporation sought time to get instructions. This Court passed an interim order to the effect that, coercive action pertaining to Ext.P9 will remain suspended for a period of two weeks. On 08.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a photograph of the advertisement board erected on the strength of Ext.P1 permit shall be placed on record, along with an application to accept additional document. 2. On 08.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a photograph of the advertisement board erected on the strength of Ext.P1 permit shall be placed on record, along with an application to accept additional document. 2. The learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Corporation shall ensure that the statements on behalf of the respondents is placed on record, within a week. 3. The interim order granted on 25.02.2019 is extended by three weeks. However, this order will not enable the petitioner to display any advertisement on the board erected as per Ext.P1 permit. Post on 19.03.2019.” (underline supplied) 3.2. On 19.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the petitioner produced the photograph of the advertisement board erected on the strength of Ext.P1 permission, as Ext.P10, along with I.A.No.1 of 2019. On 04.04.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “On 01.04.2019 when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the advertisement hoarding erected by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 permission is not on the side of the National Highway. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 2nd respondent, submitted that the advertisement hoarding is erected at Kollumthazham Junction. 2. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, Smt.Ann Susan George, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader, based on the instructions received from the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Kilikolloor, would submit that the petitioner has erected the advertisement hoarding at Kollumthazham Junction, the meeting point of two major national highways, i.e., NH-66 Kollam Bypass and Kollam-Shenkottai Highway. The learned Government Pleader would submit that a statement of the 2nd respondent shall be placed on record by 08.04.2019. List on 08.04.2019.” 3.3. On 10.04.2019, the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police filed a statement opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. As per the said statement, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P9 notice when the petitioner erected an advertisement board facing public junction at Kallumthazham, where National Highway-66 Bypass meets Kollam-Shenkottai Highway. When erection of such advertisement board affects public safety, the 2nd respondent has ample power and authority to issue Ext.P9. As per the said statement, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P9 notice when the petitioner erected an advertisement board facing public junction at Kallumthazham, where National Highway-66 Bypass meets Kollam-Shenkottai Highway. When erection of such advertisement board affects public safety, the 2nd respondent has ample power and authority to issue Ext.P9. The photograph of the advertisement board is placed on record as Annexure-R2(a). After the erection of advertisement board, a large number of people including social activists gathered there and raised complaints against the advertisement board. The Station House Officer Kilikolloor Police Station reached the spot and enquired the matter and thereafter, issued Ext.P9 notice on the petitioner. The 2nd respondent would also point out that after the inauguration of National Highway-66 Bypass accident rates are very high at Kallumthazham Junction in Kilikolloor Police Station limits. Crime No.63/2019, under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code is registered on 22.01.2019. 3.4. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement, reiterating the contentions raised in the statement filed in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018. 3.5. On 12.04.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was ordered to be posted on 24.04.2019 along with the connected case. 4. On 6.6.2019, when both these writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Kollam Corporation sought time to address arguments with reference to IRC:46-1972, i.e., 'Policy on Roadside Advertisements' formulated by Indian Road Congress; Circular No.RW/NH-00344/34/2001/S&R(R) dated 16.05.2002 and letter No.F.No.RW/NH-33044/18/2016/S&R(R) dated 07.09.2016 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for Kollam Corporation and also the learned counsel for the party respondents. 6. The issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to the right or entitlement of the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.5618 of 2019 to erect an advertisement board at Kallumthazham Junction, where National Highway Bypass meets Kollam-Shenkottai Highway, on the strength of Ext.P1/R6(a) permission obtained from the Secretary of Kollam Corporation. 7. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019, who is the 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018 had erected an advertisement board on the property in question, on the strength of Ext.P1 permission dated dated 13.07.2018. 7. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019, who is the 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018 had erected an advertisement board on the property in question, on the strength of Ext.P1 permission dated dated 13.07.2018. The document marked as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 is the site plan and location sketch and Ext.P3 is the structural stability certificate dated 15.02.2018 issued by the Consultant Engineer. The advertisement board erected by the petitioner consists of steel structural frame, as shown in Ext.P2, made of mild steel sections and MS pipe support post bolted with 16mm thick top plate and 20mm thick base plate, anchored to RCC foundation block using 20mm diameter main steel and 10mm diameter stirrups, in a 3.6m x 1.8m x 3.45m pit. The size of the steel structure for display of advertisement is 6.09m x 9.13m, which is erected at a height 5.48m above ground level. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 08.03.2019, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 producing therewith a photograph of the advertisement board as Ext.P10. As discernible from Ext.P10 photograph, the steel structure erected on MS pipe support post for display of advertisement encroaches the carriageway of National Highway, though at a height 5.48m above ground level. The photographs of the advertisement board are produced along with the statement filed by the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police as Annexure.R2(a). The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018 has also produced the photographs of the advertisement board as Ext.P6. The said photographs would show that the property in question is narrow strip of land abutting the carriageway of the National Highway at Kallumthazham Junction, where National Highway Bypass meets Kollam-Shenkottai Highway. He has also produced Ext.P8 photographs along with the reply affidavit filed in that writ petition, in order to show that site measurements shown in the site plan and also the direction of National Highway Bypass at Kallumthazham Junction and Kollam-Shenkottai Highway in the location sketch are incorrect. The newly opened Bypass starting from Kollam-Shenkottai Highway lies north-south direction and Kollam-Shenkottai Highway lies at east-west direction. The newly opened Bypass starting from Kollam-Shenkottai Highway lies north-south direction and Kollam-Shenkottai Highway lies at east-west direction. The photographs placed on record, including that produced by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019, as Ext.P10, would indicate that site measurements are incorrectly shown in Ext.P2 site plan, in order to make it appear that the site for erection of advertisement board is away from the carriageway of National Highway and also the compound wall of the adjoining property. 8. Indian Road Congress formulated 'Policy on Roadside Advertisements', vide IRC:46-1972. Indian Road Congress was set up in December, 1934 on the recommendations of the Indian Road Development Committee (Jayakar Committee) set up by the Government of India, with the objective of Road Development in India. Indian Road Congress works in collaboration with Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). The Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH, is the Honorary Treasurer of Indian Road Congress. There are three Apex Committees, which are responsible for formulation and updation of Codes of Practices, Standards and Guidelines, i.e., Highways Specifications and Standards Committee; Bridges pecifications and Standards Committee; and General Specifications and Standards Committee. There are Technical Committees under each Apex Committees. The Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH; the President and Secretary General of Indian Road Congress are Ex-Officio members of all Technical Committees. 8.1. Indian Road Congress formulated 'Policy on Roadside Advertisements', vide IRC:46-1972, when it was noticed that lack of control on hoardings or display of advertisement panels (including wall panels on roadside structures) leads not only to creation of traffic hazards but often also causes serious detriment to local amenity and the general aesthetic characteristics of a neighbourhood. As per Para 1.3 of IRC:46-1972, advertisement can often effectively distract the attention of drivers of motor vehicles and in that case a public hazard or nuisance. They may also obstruct the view of the drivers of fast-moving vehicles and are then a public danger. As per Para 1.5, control of roadside advertisements is justified on the multiple grounds of protecting public investment in highways, ensuring safety of the road users and preserving local amenity. Para.1 of IRC:46-1972, which deals with introduction, reads thus; “1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. They may also obstruct the view of the drivers of fast-moving vehicles and are then a public danger. As per Para 1.5, control of roadside advertisements is justified on the multiple grounds of protecting public investment in highways, ensuring safety of the road users and preserving local amenity. Para.1 of IRC:46-1972, which deals with introduction, reads thus; “1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Lack of control on hoardings or display of advertisement panels (including wall panels on roadside structures) leads not only to creation of traffic hazards but often also causes serious detriment to local amenity and the general aesthetic characteristics of a neighbourhood. 1.2. At present the desired measure of control is either not exercised or is only partly exercised. 1.3. Advertisements can often effectively distract the attention of drivers of motor vehicles and in that case are a public hazard or nuisance. They may also obstruct the view of the drivers of fast-moving vehicles and are then a public danger. 1.4. When they become an eyesore or otherwise are an 'injury to amenity', they interfere with public rights and can be logically prohibited on that ground. 1.5. As such, control of roadside advertisements is justified on the multiple grounds of protecting public investment in highways, ensuring safety of the road users and preserving local amenity. In addition to enforcement, it is desirable that there should be a voluntary acceptance of this principle. 1.6. This standard was originally prepared by the Specifications and Standards Committee and published in 1953. Partly for conversion into metric system, and partly for making other changes in the light of comments received from different agencies such as the State Public Works Departments, Municipalities, Institute of Town Planners and Indian Standards Institution, a review of the Policy was taken up by the Committee at its meetings held in 1966 and 1967. Later on, the Policy was revised in the light of the discussions at a number of meetings of the committee and the final draft was approved by them in their meeting held on the 29th and 30th September, 1972 and the Executive Committee approved it in the meeting held on 25th November, 1972. Later on, it was finally approved by the Council in the 79th meeting held at Gandhinagar on the same date. This revised standard takes into account the different foreign Practices.” 8.2. Para.2 of IRC:46-1972 deals with advertisement control. Later on, it was finally approved by the Council in the 79th meeting held at Gandhinagar on the same date. This revised standard takes into account the different foreign Practices.” 8.2. Para.2 of IRC:46-1972 deals with advertisement control. As per Para.2.1, 'advertisement' means any word, letter, model, sign, placard, board, notice, device or presentation, whether illuminated or not, in the nature of, and employed wholly or in part, for the purpose of advertisement, announcement or direction (excluding any such thing employed wholly as a memorial, road sign or railway signal). As per Para.2.2, 'advertisement' includes any hoarding or similar structures used or adapted for the display of advertisements. As per Para.2.3, Para.3 (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 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. Para.2 of IRC:46-1972 reads thus; “2. ADVERTISEMENT CONTROL 2.1. 'ADVERTISEMENT', in the following paragraphs, means any word, letter, model, sign, placard, board, notice, device or presentation, whether illuminated or not, in the nature of, and employed wholly or in part, for the purpose of advertisement, announcement or direction (excluding any such thing employed wholly as a memorial, road sign or railway signal). 2.2. 'Advertisement' includes any hoarding or similar structures used or adapted for the display of advertisements. Note:-Any sign-post, bus sign, name plate, warning sign, etc. not being on a vehicle, will be included under the head 'advertisement', the dictionary meaning of the word being 'public announcement'. 2.3. The following paragraphs 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.” 8.3. Para.3 of IRC:46-1972 deals with principles on advertisement control. Para. 3.1 deals with what may be considered as objectionable. As per sub-para (1) of Para.3.1.1, 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. Para. 3.1 deals with what may be considered as objectionable. As per sub-para (1) of Para.3.1.1, 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. As per the Note to sub-para (1) of Para.3.1.1, the safe stopping distance for a vehicle travelling at a speed of 50km/hr, is 60m. This should be the 'uninfluenced distance' for a driver approaching a junction. Assuming that 3 seconds is the time during which the influence of an advertisement board persists, the distance travelled in this time will be about 40m. The sign should, therefore, be more than 100m away from the junction. 8.4. As per sub-para (2) of Para.3.1.1 of IRC:46-1972, in general, advertisements should not be permitted in such manner and at such places as to obstruct or interfere with the visibility of approaching, merging or intersecting traffic; and as per sub-para (3), within 10m of the edge of a carriageway. As per the Note to sub-para (3) of Para.3.1.1, a distance of 10m may be taken as the normal minimum setback from the edge of the carriageway, the maximum area of the advertisement being 0.3 sq.m. for every metre of setback. As per sub-para (4) of Para.3.1.1, in general, advertisements should not be permitted within 50m along the road, of any sign board erected for the regulation of traffic under the orders of a Public Authority such as a Traffic Authority, a Public Transport Authority, or a Local Authority; and as per sub-para (5), in such a form as will obscure or hinder interpretation of any sign, signal or other device erected for traffic control by Public Authorities. 8.5. As per sub-para (6) of Para.3.1.1 of IRC:46-1972, 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; as per sub-para (7), in such form as will obstruct the path of pedestrians and hinder their visibility at crossings; as per sub-para (8), within right-of-way of the road; and as per sub-para (9), when it will affect local amenity. Para.3.1 of IRC:46-1972 reads thus; “3. PRINCIPLES OF ADVERTISEMENT CONTROL 3.1. What may be considered as objectionable 3.1.1. Para.3.1 of IRC:46-1972 reads thus; “3. PRINCIPLES OF ADVERTISEMENT CONTROL 3.1. What may be considered as objectionable 3.1.1. In general, advertisements should not be permitted: (1) 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; Note:-The safe stopping distance for a vehicle travelling at a speed of 50km/hr, is 60m. This should be the 'uninfluenced distance' for a driver approaching a junction. Assuming that 3 seconds is the time during which the influence of an advertisement board persists, the distance travelled in this time will be about 40m. The sign should, therefore, be more than 100m away from the junction. Hence 100m is suggested. (2) in such manner and at such places as to obstruct or interfere with the visibility of approaching, merging or intersecting traffic; (3) within 10m of the edge of a carriageway; Note:-A distance of 10m may be taken as the normal minimum setback from the edge of the carriageway, the maximum area of the advertisement being 0.3 sq.m. for every metre of setback. (4) within 50m along the road, of any sign board erected for the regulation of traffic under the orders of a Public Authority such as a Traffic Authority, a Public Transport Authority, or a Local Authority: (5) in such a form as will obscure or hinder interpretation of any sign, signal or other device erected for traffic control by the Public Authorities. For instance, the advertisements should not imitate or resemble, in colour or shape, the standard legal traffic signs, or employ such words as 'STOP' in the same manner as used on traffic signs. (6) on boards, placards, cloth banners or sheets hung across a road as they distract the attention of the driver and are, therefore, hazardous; (7) in such form as will obstruct the path of pedestrians and hinder their visibility at crossings: (8) within right-of-way of the road; (9) when these will affect local amenity.” 8.6. As per Para.3.1.2 of IRC:46-1972, illuminated advertisements as described in clauses (a) to (c) thereof are objectionable from the angle of traffic safety and should not be allowed. Para.3.1.2 of IRC:46-1972 reads thus; “3.1.2. As per Para.3.1.2 of IRC:46-1972, illuminated advertisements as described in clauses (a) to (c) thereof are objectionable from the angle of traffic safety and should not be allowed. Para.3.1.2 of IRC:46-1972 reads thus; “3.1.2. Illuminated advertisements of the following description are objectionable from the angle of traffic safety and should not be allowed: (a) advertisements which contain, include or are illuminated by any flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights except those giving public service information such as time, temperature, weather or date; (b) illuminated advertisements of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or impair vision of the driver or pedestrians, or which otherwise interfere with any operations of driving. (c) advertisements illuminated in such a way as to obscure or diminish effectiveness of any official traffic sign, device or signal.” 8.7. Para.3.2 of IRC:46-1972 deals with what may be considered as affecting amenity. Para.3.2 reads thus; “3.2. What may be considered as affecting amenity 3.2.1. From aesthetic considerations the display of commercial advertisements should he strictly controlled where either the general characteristics of the locality are predominantly those of a residential neighbourhood or where natural scenery or public improvements are thereby likely to be depreciated. 3.2.2. The Frontage of buildings of a dignified and subdued character such as hospitals, educational institutions, public offices memorials of national importance, places of worship, etc, should be protected from the vandalism of commercial advertisements.” 8.8. Para.3.3 of IRC:46-1972 deals with relaxations. Para.3.3 reads thus; “3.3. Relaxations 3.3.1. In public interest, advertisements of the following classes are permissible without express consent, though these should reasonably conform to the principles set out in clause 3.1.1. Class (1) Functional advertisements. (a) Official warning signs, traffic directions, sign posting and notices or advertisements posted or displayed by or under the directions of any public or court officer in the performance of his official or directed duties. Example: DIVERSION AHEAD (b) Direction signs to places of public amenity, such as petrol filling stations, repair shops, garages, hospitals, first-aid posts, police stations and fire stations. Example: HOSPITAL BUS STATION (c) Signs relating solely to any city, town, village or historic place, shrine, place of tourist interest. Examples: ELLORA CAVES FARIDABAD TOWN (d) Signs, notices, etc., erected by the Defence Department for the information of members of the armed forces or the public. Example: HOSPITAL BUS STATION (c) Signs relating solely to any city, town, village or historic place, shrine, place of tourist interest. Examples: ELLORA CAVES FARIDABAD TOWN (d) Signs, notices, etc., erected by the Defence Department for the information of members of the armed forces or the public. Example: ARTILLERY RANGE AHEAD (e) Signs restricting tresspass of property, limited to 0.2 sq.m. in area or less. Example: PRIVATE PROPERTY TRESSPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED (f) Signs or notices, 0.2 sq. m. in area or less, placed so as to show direction to a residence or place of business and plated sufficiently away from the carriageway. Class (2) Advertisements relating to the premises on which these are displayed. (a) Advertisements for the purpose of identification, direction or warning with respect to the land or building on which they are displayed, provided not exceeding 0.2 sq.metre in area in the case of any such advertisement. Example: MIND THE STEP PROPERTY OF MOHAN LAL & CO. USHA KIRAN (b) Advertisements relating to any person, partnership or company separately carrying on a profession, business trade at the premises where any such advertisement is displayed; limited to one advertisement not exceeding 0.3 sq.metre in are in respect of each such person, partnership or company. Example: RAM LAL & COMPANY (c) Advertisements relating to any institution of a religious, educational, cultural, recreational, medical or similar character or any hotel, public house, dak bungalow, block of flats, club, boarding house or hostel situated on the land on which any such advertisement is displayed; limited to one advertisement not exceeding 1.2 sq. metre in area in respect of each such premises. Example: COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING HOLIDAY HOME ROTARY CLUB Class (3) Advertisements of temporary nature. (a) Advertisements relating to the sale or letting of the land on which they are displayed; limited in respect of each such sale or letting, to one advertisement not exceeding 2 sq. metre in area. Example: TO LET HOUSE FOR SALE (b) Advertisements announcing sale of goods or livestock, and displayed on the land where such gods or livestock are situated or where such sale is held, limited to one advertisement not exceeding 1.2 sq. metre in area. Example: SALE THIS WEEK CATTLE SALE (c) Advertisements relating to the carrying out of building or similar work on the land on which they are displayed not exceeding 2 sq. metre in area. metre in area. Example: SALE THIS WEEK CATTLE SALE (c) Advertisements relating to the carrying out of building or similar work on the land on which they are displayed not exceeding 2 sq. metre in area. Example: CAUTION EXCAVATION IN PROGRESS (d) Advertisements announcing any local event of a religious, educational, cultural, political, social or recreational character, not being an activity promoted or carried on for commercial purpose; limited to a display of advertisements occupying an area not exceeding 0.6 sq. metre on any premises. Examples: DIWALI MELA FLOWER SHOW” 8.9. Para.4 of IRC:46-1972 deals with dimensions of advertisements. As per Para.4.1, the general rule for maximum permissible area of advertisements should be 0.3 sq. metre per metre of setback from the edge of the carriageway. This is exclusive of the cases for which the maximum area of advertisement is specified in clause 3.1.1. 8.10. Para.5 of IRC:46-1972, which deals with conditions for permits, read thus; 5.1. The following conditions might be attached to permits: (1) The advertisement must be maintained in a clean, tidy and safe condition; (2) If the Road Authority requires the removal of the advertisement, it must be removed forthwith; (3) The advertisement must not be put in such a position as to obscure or hinder the ready interpretation of any road traffic sign, railway signal, or any other public notices; (4) The advertisement must not offend public morals and decency; (5) The grant of permission is not to be taken as operating to discharge any obligation or liability imposed or incurred by any other enactment in force in relation to any operation or other matter in connection with building byelaws or any other laws or bye-laws concerning roads, buildings, etc. 9. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), vide Circular No.RW/NH-33044/35/2001/S&R(R) dated 16.05.2002 has made it clear that no advertisement hoardings are permitted on National Highways within the Right of Way (ROW) except informatory signs of public interest such as hospitals, bus stations, etc. or advertisement of temporary nature announcing local events such as Mela, Flower Show, etc. Besides, IRC:46-1972 titled 'A Policy on Roadside Advertisements' published in 1972 should also be referred for comprehensive guidelines on advertisement control on National Highways. 10. or advertisement of temporary nature announcing local events such as Mela, Flower Show, etc. Besides, IRC:46-1972 titled 'A Policy on Roadside Advertisements' published in 1972 should also be referred for comprehensive guidelines on advertisement control on National Highways. 10. MoRTH in its letter No.F.No.RW/NH-33044/18/2016/S&R(R) dated 07.09.2016 noticed that despite the Ministry's policy of not allowing roadside advertisements, hoardings on National Highways which cause distraction and is also one of the causes of accidents on National Highways, advertisement hoardings have generally been noticed along the National Highways. Therefore, it was decided that the Regional Officers/Engineering Liasoning Officers within their jurisdiction shall inspect the National Highways by prioritising heavily traffic National Highways and other National Highways in stages and submit inspection reports to the Ministry for further necessary action, along with their monthly reports. However, reports from the Regional Officers/Engineering Liasoning Officers are not being received by the Ministry and therefore, the Ministry vide letter dated 07.09.2016 directed all the implementing agencies and Regional Officers/Engineering Liasoning Officers to do joint inspection of all National Highways within their jurisdiction and sent a consolidated report regarding advertisement hoardings to the Ministry for further necessary action. A copy of the said letter is addressed to all Engineers-in-Chief and Chief Engineers of Public Works Departments of State/Union Territories dealing with National Highways and other Centrally Sponsored Schemes. 11. 'Centre for Consumer Education' filed W.P.(C) No.27011 of 2012 as public interest litigation before this Court raising questions touching upon the safety of passengers commuting through public roads in the State. One of the reliefs sought for in that writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to initiate steps to remove all types of obstruction in roads and road margins and recover the costs from those responsible for erecting the same, and also to erect and establish proper destination boards and traffic signals in the public roads leading to Sabarimala. In the said writ petition, the State Police Chief filed a counter affidavit through the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram admitting the large number of unauthorised advertisements and hoardings in National Highways as well as in State Highways, blocking the line of sight of drivers and also causing distraction to the drivers. In the said writ petition, the State Police Chief filed a counter affidavit through the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram admitting the large number of unauthorised advertisements and hoardings in National Highways as well as in State Highways, blocking the line of sight of drivers and also causing distraction to the drivers. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that all District Police Chiefs have been alerted to take appropriate actions to see that advertisement/sign boards which are obstructing the vision of the road users shall be removed by seeking assistance of other Departments. Reports have been called for from the District Police Chiefs regarding the cases registered in connection with the erection of illegal boards or flex boards on road margins, etc. 12. After considering the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Director General of Police, the Division Bench in its judgment dated 21.02.2013 in W.P.(C) No.27011 of 2012 opined that the State and its law and order administration are on their toes in ensuring safety of the users of National Highways and State Highways as also other roads, particularly, in the context of the danger caused by unauthorised erection of the hoardings and advertisement boards. The Division Bench observed that the grievance of the petitioner Society stands redressed for the present and the State would act in accordance with the statements in the counter affidavit made on behalf of the State Police Chief. But looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Division Bench deemed it fit to direct the 3rd respondent Transport Commissioner, to take appropriate action through the officers deployed towards the end of law and order administration and ensure that the various enactments referred to in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Police Chief and in Ext.P1 petition filed by the petitioner therein are implemented with the zeal and promptitude the situation calls for and in appropriate circumstances and situations; co-ordinate with the Local Self Government Institutions to prohibit erection of advertisement boards and hoardings completely or partially according to the need of a particular location. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has also noted the stand of the National Highway Authority of India that the Local Self Government Institutions have absolutely no authority to sanction erection of the hoardings or advertisement boards in National Highways. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has also noted the stand of the National Highway Authority of India that the Local Self Government Institutions have absolutely no authority to sanction erection of the hoardings or advertisement boards in National Highways. Paragraphs 4, 5 and also the last paragraph of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 21.02.2013 in W.P(C)No.27011 of 2012, read thus; “4. In the context of the counter affidavit filed and the statements made therein, we are of the opinion that the State and its law and order administration are on their toes in ensuring safety of the users of the National and State highways as also other roads particularly in the context of the danger caused by unauthorised erection of the hoardings and advertisement boards. We are sure that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed for the present and the State would act in accordance with the statements in the counter affidavit, made on behalf of the Police Chief. 5. However, we confess to a disquiet and foreboding in our minds, more so, by what we see on the roads on a daily basis. We are not for a moment doubting the statement made in the counter affidavit nor are we importing our personal knowledge into deciding this issue. But looking at the totality of the circumstances, we deem it fit that we direct the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action through the officers deployed towards the end of law and order administration and ensure that various enactments referred to in the counter affidavit and Ext.P1 are implemented with the zeal, and promptitude the situation calls for and in appropriate circumstances and situations; coordinate with the Local Self Government Institutions to prohibit erection of advertisement boards and hoardings completely or partially according to the need of a particular location. We also had the benefit of hearing the learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India, who has stated before us that the Local Self Government Institutions have absolutely no authority to sanction erection of the hoardings or advertisement boards in the national highways. We need not alert the authority of the National Highway Authority of India in the State, to bring such incidents to the notice of the 3rd respondent; who is duty bound to prohibit the same. We need not alert the authority of the National Highway Authority of India in the State, to bring such incidents to the notice of the 3rd respondent; who is duty bound to prohibit the same. In the circumstances, and in the context of the statements made in the counter affidavit, we close the writ petition with the aforementioned directions. The parties are left to suffer their costs.” 13. As already noticed, 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. 14. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 21.02.2013 in W.P.(C) No.27011 of 2012 opined that the State and its law and order administration are on their toes in ensuring safety of the users of the National Highways and State Highways as also other roads, particularly, in the context of the danger caused by unauthorised erection of the hoardings and advertisement boards. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Division Bench deemed it fit to direct the Transport Commissioner, to take appropriate action through the officers deployed towards the end of law and order administration and ensure that the various enactments referred to in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Police Chief and in the petition filed by the petitioner therein are implemented with the zeal and promptitude the situation calls for and in appropriate circumstances and situations; co-ordinate with the Local Self Government Institutions to prohibit erection of advertisement boards and hoardings completely or partially according to the need of a particular location. 15. In the instant case, as discernible from Ext.P10 photograph in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019, the steel structure erected by the petitioner in that writ petition, for the display of advertisement, encroaches the carriageway of the National Highway, though at a height 5.48m above ground level. As discernible from the photographs of the advertisement board produced as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018, the property in question is a narrow strip of land adjoining the carriageway of the National Highway at Kallumthazham Junction, where National Highway Bypass meets Kollam-Shenkottai Highway. Ext.P8 photographs produced along with the reply affidavit filed in that writ petition would show that the site measurements shown in the site plan and also the direction of National Highway Bypass at Kallumthazham Junction and Kollam-Shenkottai Highway shown in the location sketch are incorrect. 16. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and the pleadings and materials on record, in the light of the 'Policy on Roadside Advertisements' formulated by IRC vide IRC:46-1972, the conditions stipulated in Circular No.RW/NH-00344/34/2001/S&R(R) dated 16.05.2002 and letter No.F.No.RW/NH-33044/18/2016/S&R(R) dated 07.09.2016 issued by MoRTH and also the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27011 of 2012, conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 should not have been granted with permission by the Secretary of Kollam Corporation for erecting advertisement board on the land adjoining the carriageway of the National Highway at Kallumthazham Junction, where National Highway Bypass meets Kollam-Shenkottai Highway. The averments in the statement filed by the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 would show that after the opening of Kollam Bypass, large number of motor accidents had occurred in that area. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to display advertisement on the hoarding seen in Ext.P10 photograph, which has the effect of distracting the attention of drivers from the road, which is hazardous to safe driving. 17. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 during the pendency of W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018. The document marked as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018 are photographs of the advertisement board erected by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019. The said photographs would show that the property in question in which the advertisement board has been erected is a narrow strip of land adjoining the carriageway of the National Highway at Kallumthazham Junction. The document marked as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018 are photographs of the advertisement board erected by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019. The said photographs would show that the property in question in which the advertisement board has been erected is a narrow strip of land adjoining the carriageway of the National Highway at Kallumthazham Junction. The said photographs would also show that the site measurements shown in Ext.P1/R1(a) site plan and location sketch are incorrect. Without disclosing the said facts, the petitioner has chosen to file W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 before this Court on 22.02.2019, producing therewith a copy of the order dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018 as Ext.P6; a copy of the counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018 as Ext.P7; and copy of the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for Kollam Corporation in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018, as Ext.P8. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018 was not made a party to W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019. On 19.03.2019, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 08.03.2019 in W.P. (C)No.5618 of 2019, the petitioner produced the photographs of the advertisement board erected on the strength of Ext.P1 permission, as Ext.P10. On 04.04.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw that writ petition. 18. In Usha Nanthini v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad and another, 2018 (2) KHC 89 , this Court held that, once it is found that the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by suppressing material facts and making false statements, such an attempt made by the petitioner to abuse the process of the Court has to be dealt with appropriately. In such cases, this Court has ample power to decline the permission sought for withdrawal of the writ petition. Dismissal of such writ petition imposing exemplary cost is inevitable, in order to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. 19. The law laid down as above by this Court in Usha Nanthini's case (supra) was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 21.02.2018 in W.A.No.455 of 2018 and paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads thus; “4. After going through the impugned judgment and the material in the writ appeal, we find that the appellant faces a grave charge-suppressing the material facts and misleading the Court. After going through the impugned judgment and the material in the writ appeal, we find that the appellant faces a grave charge-suppressing the material facts and misleading the Court. In fact, Usha Nanthini herself, on the learned Single Judge's direction, filed an affidavit pleading that she may be pardoned “if any wrong information is made in the writ petition”. She pleaded with the Court to permit her to withdraw the writ petition. The learned Single Judge refused-rightly so.” 20. The photographs of the advertisement board, which are placed on record as Exts.P6 and P8 in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018, and as Ext.P10 and Annexure-R2(a) in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019, would make it explicitly clear that an advertisement board 6.09m x 9.13m size, at a height of 5.48m above ground level at Kallumthazham Junction in a narrow strip of land adjoining the carriageway of the National Highway, which has the effect of distracting the attention of drivers from the road, is hazardous to safe driving. In such circumstances, the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.5618 of 2019 is not entitled to erect advertisement board in the property in question, on the strength of Ext.P1/R1(a) permission granted by the Secretary of Kollam Corporation, in the light of Ext.P6 interim order of this Court dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018, as sought for in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019. In view of the said finding, this Court need not go into the legality or otherwise of Ext.P9 notice in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019, which is one issued by the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, whereby the petitioner has been directed to stop erection of flex board in the advertisement board on the property of the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018. Therefore, W.P. (C)No.5618 of 2019 fails. 21. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Kollam Corporation would submit that notice has already been issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 for cancelling of Ext.P1/R6(a) permission to erect advertisement board in the property in question, and proceedings in this regard shall be completed without any delay. 22. Therefore, W.P. (C)No.5618 of 2019 fails. 21. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Kollam Corporation would submit that notice has already been issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 for cancelling of Ext.P1/R6(a) permission to erect advertisement board in the property in question, and proceedings in this regard shall be completed without any delay. 22. It is for the Secretary of Kollam Corporation to complete the proceedings initiated for cancellation of Ext.P1/R6(a) permission granted to erect advertisement board in the property in question, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 and the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.40465 of 2018 and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Pending proceedings for cancellation of Ext.P1/R6(a) permission, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 shall not display any advertisement on the advertisement board erected on the strength of that permission. In the result, W.P.(C)No.40465 of 2018 is disposed of as above and W.P.(C)No.5618 of 2019 is dismissed, for the reasons stated hereinbefore.