IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2940 of 2009(Y)
1. B.NAZEER, S/O.K.BAPPU, R/AT.M.B.COTTAGE
... Petitioner
2. A.K.GOPALAN, S/O.KARUTHAKUNJU R/AT.
Vs
1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KWA, PUBLIC
3. ALAPPUZJHA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY THE
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR
5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :30/01/2009
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. C. No.2940 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed by the
plaintiff in O.S.704/05 on the file of the
Munsiff’s Court, Alappuzha for a direction
being issued by this Court to the Munsiff,
Alappuzha to dispose of O.S.704/05 on merits
at the earliest within a period of two months
and to direct the first and second respondent
who published Exts.P14 and P15 tender notices
to stay the same until disposal of O.S.704/05.
2. Having heard the counsel for the
petitioner, I felt a doubt as to whether the
plaintiffs themselves were not creating
situations whereby the court below was not
being allowed to dispose of the suit. Hence,
Registry was directed to ascertain from the
Munsiff, Alappuzha as to what is the stage of
the suit and whether the suit is ripe for
W. P. C. No.2940 of 2009 -2-
trial after completion of all pretrial steps.
The Registry has got ascertained from the
Munsiff, Alappuzha that the suit is not ripe
for trial; that preliminary issues were raised
and orders passed on preliminary issues on
28/08/08; that thereafter plaintiffs filed
amendment petition on 17/11/08; that was
allowed and the case is adjourned to 03/02/09
for additional written statement along with an
injunction petition filed on 30/07/08; and
that the pretrial steps are not yet completed.
This Court cannot issue any direction as
prayed for in the light of the said report.
However, I fail to understand why the
petitioners are not permitting any work to be
executed prosecuting this suit when as per
Ext.P4 judgment in a public interest
litigation filed as W.P.C.16681/06 wherein the
plaintiffs in the suit were respondents 6 and
7; the Honourable Judges who constituted the
W. P. C. No.2940 of 2009 -3-
Division Bench though left expert decisions to
be made by Water Authority as per the
directions in the judgment, made it clear that
it would be open to the petitioners therein or
other persons of the affected area to bring
the fact to the attention of that court
dealing with public interest litigations if
the decisions of the Water Authority prove to
cause any damage or loss proving the
allegations of the petitioners therein to be
true to see that appropriate action under
Section 30 of the Kerala Water Supplies and
Sewerage Act is initiated against the
individual officers responsible for the same.
In any event, after rendering the trial court
unable to dispose of the suit on merits by
adopting one method or the other, it was
highly improper for the petitioners in having
approached this Court for a direction being
given to the court below to dispose of the
W. P. C. No.2940 of 2009 -4-
matter urgently specifying a time limit of two
months and seeking for all proceedings
pursuant to the tenders called for vide
Exts.P14 and P15 tenders, being stayed. This
Writ Petition is devoid of any merit.
3. In the result, I dismiss this Writ
Petition.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-