High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs V.S.Raveendran Pillai on 3 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs V.S.Raveendran Pillai on 3 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 544 of 2008(E)


1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

                        Vs



1. V.S.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, RAJADHANI
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :ADVOCATE GENERAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :03/03/2010

 O R D E R

? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

+WP(C).No. 5726 of 2010(S)


#1. KALLIYODU MOONNANAKUZHI ROAD ACTION
                      ...  Petitioner
2. T.VARADARAJ, CONVENER,

                        Vs



$1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY; ITS PRINCIPAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD(ROADS & BRIDGES)

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,

!                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

^                For Respondent  : No Appearance

*Coram
 The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.P.R.RAMAN
 The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

% Dated :24/02/2010

: O R D E R

P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. &
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

…………………………………………………………..

W.P.(C) No.5726 of 2010
…………………………………………………………..
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010.

JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

W.P.(C) is filed challenging the decision of the PWD to repair

and recondition the Pulippara-Attukal road as against the original

proposal for which a tender was invited for Kalliyodu-Moonnanakuzhi

Road. The allegation of the petitioners is that the local M.L.A.

influenced the PWD to shift the road for repair in deviation of the

original plan. On instruction, Government Pleader produced report

from the Chief Engineer wherein he has stated that on a reconsideration

at the instance of the MLA, it was noticed that the Pulippara-Attukal

Road passes through 10 Wards of Panavoor Panchayat, Anad

Panchayat and Nedumangadu Municipality and the beneficiaries are

around 12000 families residing there. On the other hand, the road

originally proposed to be repaired namely, Kalliyodu-Moonnanakuzhy

Road passes through only one Ward of the Panavoor Panchayat and the

W.P.(C) 5726/2010 2

beneficiaries are 1000 families living there. Government Pleader

sought to defend the shift by PWD at the request of the M.L.A. by

stating that larger number of people are beneficiaries of the Pulippara-

Attukal road which passes through Anad. According to her, the

M.L.A. has only brought to the notice of the PWD the large number of

people benefited by this road and he has not exerted any influence. We

do not find any ground to interfere in the matter because M.L.A.

represents the people of his Constituency and when the resources are

limited, it should be first used for a scheme which benefits maximum

number of people. Therefore, the preference shown by PWD for repair

of another road cannot be interfered with as it serves larger number of

people. However, we are constrained to observe that the road, the

repair of which is sought by the petitioners, is also a very important

road because it is conceded in the Chief Engineer’s letter that atleast as

many as thousand families are beneficiaries of the road. We, therefore,

W.P.(C) 5726/2010 3

direct the PWD, if possible, to repair that road also by using the funds

available in the current financial year itself and if not, atleast in the next

year.

W.P.(C) is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMAN
Acting Chief Justice

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

pms