K.Abu vs National Highways Authority Of … on 10 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32352 of 2008(B)


1. K.ABU, S/O.AHAMMADUNNY, KOOLIYAT HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), THRISSUR.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.R.RAVI

                For Respondent  :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY KOLLAMPALLY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :10/11/2008

 O R D E R
                         PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        W.P.(c).No. 32352 OF 2008
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the 10th day of November , 2008

                                  JUDGMENT

Sri.Thomas Antony, standing counsel for the first respondent

NHAI submits that the first respondent is no longer concerned with the

acquisition which is the subject matter of this writ petition. According

to him, the acquisition is being taken up by the State Government only.

He also submitted that the present writ petition is premature in as much

as till date the initial notification under Section 3A of the National

Highways Act has not been promulgated.

2. Sri.T.R. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner would

draw my attention to Ext.P3. Referring to the question and answer

which are mentioned under serial No. 2, he submitted that the reality is

that no Muuhyidheen masjid exists any where near the section of the

road referred to therein. The answer to question No.2 is reason for the

petitioner’s worry since eccentric widening of that section of the road

will surely affect the petitioner. He also drew my attention to question

and answer which are referred to under serial No.4. He submitted that

WPC.No.32352/08 2

it is in view of the questions and answers mentioned as serial Nos. 2

and 4 in Ext.P3 that the petitioner has approached this court.

Perhaps the questions and answers mentioned as serial Nos. 2 and

4 in Ext.P3 would have been justification for the petitioner to approach

this court. But in view of the definite stand taken by the first

respondent before this court, I am of the view that this writ petition is

premature. I dispose of this writ petition without considering the

grounds raised permitting the petitioner to approach this court on these

grounds and any other available grounds once notification under

Section 3A is issued by the competent authority to be appointed by the

State Government. If notification is already issued, the petitioner can

file fresh writ petition without delay.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

sv.

WPC.No.32352/08 2