High Court Kerala High Court

Kerala Consumer Service Society vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
Kerala Consumer Service Society vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23582 of 2007(S)


1. KERALA CONSUMER SERVICE SOCIETY, REG.NO.
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DR.BALANCHANDRAN., AGED 68 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,PUBLIC WORKS

3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PWD,

4. CORPORATION OF COCHIN,

5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR.ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

6. T.U.KURUVILA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :02/08/2007

 O R D E R


                   H.L. DATTU, C.J.  &   HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

                   ----------------------------------------------------------

                          W.P.(C) No. 23582 of 2007

                   -----------------------------------------------------------

                     Dated, this the 2nd  day of August, 2007


                                        JUDGMENT

H.L. DATTU, CJ.

A public spirited citizen is before us inter alia seeking the following reliefs:

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction commanding the respondents to take

immediate steps in a war foot manner to repair the roads

especially in the Corporations like Cochin, without further

delay.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ, order or direction directing the authorities to forfeit the

salary of respondents 1 to 3, due to the reason that they

not discharged their public duty and that money should be

made use to repair the roads just to show the public that

those who are responsible to discharge their duties for the

welfare of the State, should do the same.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ, order or direction directing the 4th and 5th respondents

to discharge their statutory responsibility to abet the public

nuisance of dilapidated roads by invoking section 144 of

the Cr.P.C.

(iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this

Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper as per the facts and

circumstances of the case.”

WPC No.23582/2007 2

2. In our opinion the petition filed by the petitioner is wholly

premature. Before approaching this court for the reliefs sought for by him

in the writ petition, he has necessarily to approach the representatives of

the people who hold the power and request them to maintain the roads.

Without doing so the petitioner has rushed to this court. In that view of the

matter the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by us at

this stage.

Accordingly the writ petition is rejected. Liberty is reserved to the

petitioner to approach this court, if he so desires, at an appropriate stage.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L. DATTU,

CHIEF JUSTICE.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,

JUDGE.

mt/