Pushpangadhan vs Secretary To The Department Of … on 8 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14934 of 2009(J)


1. PUSHPANGADHAN, S/O.KUNJU KRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, VANASREE,

3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,

4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KULATHUPUZHA

5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.  K.SIJU

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.PRAKASH,SPL.GP FOR FOREST

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :08/09/2009

 O R D E R
                           P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                   -----------------------------
                      W.P(C) No.14934 of 2009-J
                  ------------------------------
             Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009.

                            J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Sri.M.P.Prakash, the learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, who is a resident of Ammayambalam

Enclosure has filed this writ petition alleging that the road passing

through the Ammayambalam forests, which he and other residents of

Ammayambalam Enclosure were formerly using, has been blocked by

erecting a cross-bar gate. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for a

direction to appoint a watchman to open and close the gate in order to

enable him to use the road without any obstruction.

3. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4.

Para 5 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:

“5. It is also submitted that the residents of the
Ammayambalam Enclosure (Cathuppu) were using the road on
the southern side of Ammayamabalam forests beginning from
Arippa Junction, the total length of which is about 1 Km. It is
tarred road except for 200m. This aspect has been very cleverly
suppressed by the petitioner. The residents of the enclosure
have been using this road for their movement during the past so
many years. This road is blacktopped and having sufficient
width for easy and safe movement of men and vehicles. When
such a good road is existing in the areas, the bonafides of
claiming a forest path which is rugged and difficult for
movement, is to be doubted. Moreover, this road is safe for

W.P(C) No.14934 of 2009-J 2

travel of the local people and there is permanent facilities for
opening the gate whenever vehicular traffic is required. In order
to substantiate this, a location sketch of the area showing the lie
of the Ammayambalam Enclosure is produced herewith, which
may be marked as Exhibit R4(a).”

4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternative access and

that only 200 mts of the said road is left untarred. It is evident from the

counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 that the

petitioner and other residents of the locality have an alternative access

which is shorter in length than the way which is blocked by erecting a

cross-bar gate. It is evident from Para 5 of the counter affidavit that the

alternative road is tarred and that it has sufficient width to enable

movement of vehicles. In such circumstances as the petitioner has an

alternative access, I am of the opinion that the reliefs prayed for in this

writ petition cannot be granted. I accordingly dismiss the writ petition

with the observation that it will be open to the petitioner to use the road

mentioned in para 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of

respondents 3 and 4.

Sd/-

P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
ab
PA to Judge