High Court Kerala High Court

Miss.P.R.Sumathi vs The Secretary on 12 January, 2007

Kerala High Court
Miss.P.R.Sumathi vs The Secretary on 12 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23326 of 2006(B)


1. MISS.P.R.SUMATHI, D/O.SRI.P.K.RAVUNNI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MISS.P.R.OMANA, D/O.SRI.P.K.RAVUNNI,

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY, EDATHIRITHI GRAMA
                       ...       Respondent

2. PRESIDENT, EDATHIRITHI GRAMA

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.WILLIAM JOHN

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOICE GEORGE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :12/01/2007

 O R D E R
                          PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

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

                     W.P.(C)NO. 23326  of    2006

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

                Dated this 12th day of  January, 2007


                                  JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed complaining that there is

water logging in the compound of the petitioners due to the

failure on the part of the 2nd respondent Panchayat to provide

drainage facilities on the Netaji road which is situated by the

side of the petitioners’ compound. The averments in the writ

petition and the various photographs produced along with the

same will show that the grievance voiced by the petitioners is a

genuine one.

2. The Panchayat has filed a detailed statement, in which

the petitioners’ allegation that for want of drainage and the

petitioners’ compound is getting flooded is not disputed. To the

statement a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners

reiterating his contentions in the writ petition.

3.Heard Sri.J.William John, the learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri.Joice George, the learned Standing Counsel for

the respondent Panchayat and Sri.Mathew G.Vadakkal, the

WPC No.23326/2006 2

learned Government Pleader. The counsel for the Panchayat

would submit that when the Panchayat invited tenders for doing

drainage construction work, but there was no response.

Thereafter quotations were invited. Response was nill. The

Panchayat would have been inclined to execute the work by

itself. According to the learned Standing counsel for the

Panchayat, the Panchayat may not be able to execute this work

by itself since this work does not involve any earth work and

the Panchayat normally executes only works in which atleast

75% of the work involved is earth work.

4. Considering the gravity of problem which is being faced

by the petitioners, I am of the view that there is justification for

directing the Panchayat to deviate from the rule and execute

the work by itself. The Panchayat will treat the petitioners’ case

as a special one and execute the work of constructing drain by

the side of the Netaji road so that the water logging problem in

the compound of the petitioners will be abated once for at all.

This writ petition will stand disposed of directing the

respondent Panchayat to construct a proper drain by the side of

Netaji Road so as to allow water from the compound of the

petitioner flow through the same and thereby prevent water

WPC No.23326/2006 3

logging in the compound of the petitioners. Needful will be done

by the Panchayat within three months of receiving a copy of this

judgment. It is needless to mention that execution of the work

will be in terms of the project which has been approved by the

Block level Expert Committee.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Judge

dpk