High Court Kerala High Court

Bharatheeya Swasraya Kudivella vs General Manager on 18 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Bharatheeya Swasraya Kudivella vs General Manager on 18 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34984 of 2009(S)


1. BHARATHEEYA SWASRAYA KUDIVELLA
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PEEDIYAKANDY ABDUL KHADER,
3. P.P.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.N.K.MOOSAN,
4. THANGALAVALAPPIL KHADEEJA,
5. PANDARAVALAPPIL SAINABA,
6. M.P.SUDHARMAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN,
7. P.NARAYANI, D/O.KUNHIRAMAN,
8. ARACKAL NABEESA, W/O.KAMAL,

                        Vs



1. GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

                For Petitioner  :SMT.M.M.DEEPA

                For Respondent  :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

 Dated :18/12/2009

 O R D E R
             S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
                 ------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No.34984 of 2009
                 ------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

A.K.Basheer, J.

An organization which is stated to be engaged in

implementing a scheme to provide potable water to the residents in

and around Chelora Grama Panchayat and some of the inhabitants of

that area through which a bye-pass road is now proposed to be

constructed by the National Highway Authority, have filed this writ

petition. The primary prayer is to issue a writ in the nature of

mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the

respondents to undertake a survey through an independent agency

with regard to the construction of the said Pappinisseri-

Thazhechovva bye-pass road on National Highway 17, taking into

account the guidelines issued by the Union Government and the

grievances highlighted by the petitioners in Ext.P2 plan within a

time frame. There is a further prayer to issue a direction to

respondent No.1 to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by

WP(C) No.34984 of 2009

– 2 –

petitioner No.1 organization and take an appropriate decision

thereon.

2. The main grievance of the petitioners appears to be

that the alignment which is in contemplation of the respondents for

construction of the bye-pass will cause harm and damage to the

properties of the local residents, particularly to the drinking water

project established in that area. Petitioners would suggest an

alternative alignment which is much shorter according to him. The

acquisition cost will be much less and damage to property very

minimal, it is contended by them. We do not propose to deal with

the above and other contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ

petition, at this stage.

3. In our view, these are all matters which will have to

be necessarily considered by the competent authority which has the

necessary expertise in the field. In the statement filed on behalf of

respondent No.1, it is stated that the work on identification of

correct survey number and measurement of exact extent of land that

may be required for the purpose, is now in progress. Draft

WP(C) No.34984 of 2009

– 3 –

declaration to be published under Section 3A of the National

Highways Act, 1956 in respect of the lands in Edakkad,

Chembilode, Kadambur and Muzhappilangad Villages is already

sent to the Ministry concerned. The work on the stretch between

Pappinissery and Thazhechovva is in its final stage.

4. In our view, there is no justifiable reason for this

Court to interfere with the ongoing process undertaken by the

authorities. Anyhow, in view of the persuasive submission made by

the learned senior counsel, we are inclined to grant the second prayer

made in this writ petition, namely to issue a direction to respondent

No.1 to consider and take a decision on Ext.P5 representation.

5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to respondent No.1 (or any such other authority that may

be authorised by respondent No.1 in this behalf) to consider and

pass orders on Ext.P5 representation strictly on its merit and in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. It shall be ensured by the authority concerned that an

WP(C) No.34984 of 2009

– 4 –

opportunity of hearing is afforded to an authorised representative of

petitioner No.1 organization before any decision is taken in the

matter.

Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice

A.K. Basheer,
Judge
vns