Justice Devan Ramachandran made the observations while considering the review petition relating to a plea which had earlier declared the installation of unauthorized boards, banners, hoardings, flags, as illegal.

The Court had earlier questioned the State regarding its failure to implement the direction issued by the Court against unauthorised flags, banners, etc.

The Court noted that despite repeated questions, neither the Government Pleader nor the standing counsel appearing for the local self-government institutions had been able to provide satisfactory answers. The concerned counsels have sought time to state their positions.

The Court noted that Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam Corporation had filed statements regarding their actions to comply with the Court direction. An affidavit was filed by the government pleader as well which was sworn to by the Chief Secretary.

The Court flagged discrepancy between the number of flags, boards and other installations removed and the fines shown as having been imposed or collected. According to the Court, while the statements contained details of installations removed, the corresponding columns relating to fines either showed “zero" or negligible amounts.

The Court recalled that its judgment had specifically directed that a fine of ₹5,000 be imposed on each board and installation, including flags, and noted that the Government had accepted the direction.

“When the statements show the number of installations and boards removed, it is axiomatic that the fines imposed should be 5,000 each on it and endeavour shall also be taken to recover it as per law.” Court observed.

The Court was critical of the absence of details regarding recovery proceedings in cases where fines had allegedly been imposed. It observed that the State was losing valuable revenue because of the apparent lack of willingness to collect the fines.

“The state is now losing valuable revenue on account of the lack of will to collect fines on the installation. Going by the numbers shown, the State would have been benefitted by crores of rupees, but what has been collected is not even a percentage of it, if not less.” Court said.

The Court described the conduct of the authorities as "virtually a criminal action", stating that the authorities were denuding the State treasury of valuable amounts.

The Court also reiterated that its earlier judgment had made it clear that Secretaries and other responsible officials would be personally liable if the fines were not properly imposed and collected.

The Court made it clear that the Secretaries concerned would remain under notice of their statutory responsibility to impose and collect fines based on the number of installations.

“If they exhibit any insouciance in this the responsibility for the fines will be on them. This is how the judgment was delivered and this is how the government has accepted it through their subsequent submission.” Court added.

Since the Government Pleader and standing counsel sought time to explain how the fines would be imposed and recovered. The Court adjourned the matter to September 3 for further consideration.

Case Title: Rahul K T v St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church

Case No: RP1394/ 2025 in WP(C) 22750/ 2018

Counsel for Respondents - George Varghese, A R Dileep, P J Joe Paul, Manu Sebastian, K V Sohan (State Attorney), Ashok M Cherian (Additional Advocate General), T S Shyamprasanth (Government Pleader), Vincent Joseph, Lal K Joseph, Babu Karukapadath, C N Prabhakaran, N Nandakumar Menon (Sr.), Suman Chakravarthy, M K Chandra Mohan Das, S Sreekumar, K K Chandran Pillai (Sr.), S Ambily, Namitha Nambiar, Saji Thomas, Vaniah Maria Dominic, M Meena John, Issac M Perumpillil, Santhosh P Poduval, Bindumol Joseph, B S Syamanthak, Anju Anilkumar, Prem Chand R Nair, Deepu Lal Mohan, Deepu Thankan

Amicus Curiae - Harish Vasudevan & Jacob Mathew