The Kerala High Court on June 19 made it clear that it was the primary responsibility of the secretaries of local self-government institutions to ensure that unauthorised hoardings and advertisements boards erected at public places were removed and a fine of ₹5,000 per board collected from those who erected it.
Justice Devan Ramachandran ordered that if they faced any impediments in doing so, they were at liberty to inform the court through the amicus curiae or government pleader appointed in the case relating to removal of unauthorised hoardings from public places.
The court observed that it was the role of the police to identify those who had erected such illegal boards or hoardings in public places . If they did not do it, it was time to take action against such police officers. The court added that it had declared that any boards or banners or hoarding which did not have the information of its printer should be construed as illegal and necessary action should be taken against the persons or entities who installed them after identifying them.
The court noted that unauthorised boards are still being installed in defiance of the orders issued by the court and the government in various parts of the State. It is, therefore, necessary that each individual secretary of the local self-government intuitions should be held responsible because it was his/her primary responsibility to ensure removal of such boards. The court said that it expected every secretary of the local self-government institutions to understand the purport of its orders and take necessary action, particularly collection of fines.
The amicus curiae submitted that the State govt had issued circulars informing all the secretaries of local government institutions as well as the local monitoring committee that every unauthorised boards and hoardings will have to be removed or fine of Rs.5000 should be imposed on the persons or entitled who had erected them. He submitted that indubitably, had the fine been collected, not only the exchequer would have been benefited but the proclivity of individuals to keep repeating the offence would have come down. What was now being perpetuated was an infraction at both levels, for which the persons entrusted with the task of removing the illegal boards and hoardings and collecting fines would have to be held accountable. He further submitted that the police were refusing to register FIR
