Kerala High Court
Sofia John vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12763 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 SOFIA JOHN
W/O. VINOD JACOB, KANNANAIKKAL HOUSE, C-9, RAVI
NAGAR, PIPE LINE ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 SONIA JOHN
W/O. THAMPAN VARGHESE, ANUGRAHA, CHERIYELA,
ALAMMOODU P.O., MUGHATHALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.SUDHEER
SMT.N.P.ASHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
ROADS AND BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRIDGES
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM-695531.
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ROADS DIVISION, PWD, KOLLAM-695531.
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOLLAM DISTRICT-695531.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.12763 of 2017
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 12763 of 2017
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding and compelling the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4(a) within a time frame and direct him verify whether the alternative alignment as suggested by petitioners is feasible and economical one than the original alignment.
ii) Stay the further proceedings on Exts.P1 and P1(a) till consideration of Ext.P4(a)
iii) In case if it is found that the alternative alignment as suggested by petitioners is more feasible and economical than the original alignment, direct the respondents 1 to 5 to proceed with the alternative alignment as suggested by petitioners.
iv) such other appropriate writ order or W.P.(C) No.12763 of 2017 3 direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of Justice."[SIC]
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the alternative alignment suggested by the petitioners is not considered. A counter affidavit is filed by the 4 th respondent. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above counter affidavit.
"5. Present alignment is not oblique but perpendicular is to the flow of water of Ithikkara river. PWD has no intention to help Mr. Varghese to save his property, as he is an unknown and independent person to PWD. The proposal alignment is finalized as per the detailed investigations and surveys done at the proposed site. Oblique Bridges are not constructed. Perpendicular Bridges are economical.
6. As said in the 5th para, if the alignment is changed to an inclined position at a distance of 15-20 m d/s, it will not reduce the cost of construction, but it will increase the span of bridge as well as its construction cost span of bridge as well as its construction cost. If the bridge, is constructed in the said position, suitable sight distance will not be W.P.(C) No.12763 of 2017 4 obtained from the vehicles coming from Highway side which will result in heavy accidents. Hence the alignment now fixed is a scientific and economic one.
7. It is submitted that as per the petition given by the petitioners, two meetings were held. First one at the Executive Engineer, Office on 09.02.2017 Roads Division, Kollam and second one at Forest Ministers Office on 23.03.2017. In this meeting, PWD explained in detail about how the alignment has been fixed in the present position, and the after effects if the alignment is changed.
8. It is submitted that regarding no action as commented by the respondents is baseless. We had conducted 2 meetings as mentioned above. PWD has no intention to help any one's property and there is no such political or money pressure involved as said by the petitioners."
From the above it is clear that the alternative alignment submitted by the petitioners is also considered by the authority concerned. This Court can not sit in appeal against such decisions, which are taken by competent authorities. This Court has no authority or expertise to decide, which alignment W.P.(C) No.12763 of 2017 5 is to be accepted. If that be the case, nothing survives in this case.
Therefore, recording the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, this Writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM W.P.(C) No.12763 of 2017 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12763/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.
AE/BRSP/KZPM-LA/01/16-17 DATED 22/06/2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD, PUNALUR TO THE IST PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.
A3/BRSP/KZPM-LA/01/16-17 DATED 22/06/2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD,PUNALUR TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BRIDGES) PWD, KOLLAM EXHIBIT-P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BRIDGES) PWD,KOLLAM EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR PWD DATED 15/02/2017 EXHIBIT-P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17/02/2017 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF PWD EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT AND OTHERS DATED 30/03/2017 EXHIBIT-P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDMENT RECEIPT DATED 01/04/2017 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE