Jojo Thomas vs The State Of Kerala Rep. By
2021 Latest Caselaw 1228 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

 WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/23TH POUSHA, 1942

                 WP(C).No.6558 OF 2019(T)

PETITIONERS:

     1     JOJO THOMAS, AGED 47, S/O. THOMAS,
           CHAKINIYANKAL HOUSE, CHEPUKULAM P.O.,
           UDUMBANNUR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 581.

     2     VINOD O. GOPINATH, AGED 42,
           S/O. GOPINADHAN, OLIYANIKAL HOUSE,
           CHEENIKUZHI P.O., IDUKKI-685 595.

           BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

RESPONDENTS:
      1     THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY
            THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
            LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

     2     THE KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT
           AGENCY, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
           HAVING ADDRESS TC 28/855, CSI BUILDINGS,
           PULIMOOD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

     3     THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
           KERALA STATE RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
           HAVING ADDRESS TC 28/855, CIS BUILDINGS,
           PULIMOOD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

     4     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
           UNIT (PIU), POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, (PAU),
           DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685 608.

     5     ACCREDITED ENGINEER/ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
           PRIME MINISTER GRAMEENA SADAK YOGANA,(PMGSY),
           ELAMDESOM BLOCK, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685 603.

          R1-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.6558/2019
                                    :2 :




                          JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 13th day of January, 2021

The petitioners, who are beneficiaries of

Peringasseri-Chepukulam road, are before this Court seeking

to direct the respondents to complete the procedure and

entrust the work and complete the same in a time bound

manner as far as the construction and maintenance of the

Peringasseri-Chepukulam road, in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioners would contend that on either side of

Peringasseri-Chepukulam road, there are about 150 families

residing. Such families have given land as free surrender for

development of the road. Surrender was made during the

year 2005 and agreement with the contractor was executed in

2009. In the meantime, some disputes arose between the

contractor and the Government and the construction was not

completed. Even as on date, there is no progress in the WP(C) No.6558/2019

construction.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the beneficiaries of the road had given free

surrender of land incurring substantial loss of property. The

road is not completed because of the administrative lethargy.

The statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioners are

infringed and therefore interference of this Court invoking the

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

extremely necessary.

4. The learned Government Pleader filed a statement

and an additional statement in the writ petition. The statement

would show that pursuant to the contract, construction of

culverts, retaining walls and GSB and G2 layers were done

before 2011. However, certain disputes arose between the

contractor and the Government with regard to unit rate of

excavation of hard rock. The contractor filed W.P.(C)

No.13821/2012 before this Court. The litigation continued for

seven years. During this period, the Department could not

move further with the work. Due to the delay in execution of WP(C) No.6558/2019

work, the already executed road is completely damaged and

the work has to be restarted from the initial stage. The

statement would proceed to show that the amount required as

on date for construction of the Peringasseri-Chepukulam road

renovation would be ₹2,39,88,819/-.

5. The learned Government Pleader further pointed

out that the construction of this road was undertaken under

centrally sponsored PMGSY-I Scheme. The Government of

India has directed to complete all PMGSY-I works including

the work of Peringasseri-Chepukulam road before

31.12.2020. It was practically impossible for the Government

to rearrange and execute the work within the stipulated time

due to the litigation which was pending. Now that the period

of scheme is over, the funds from the Government of India are

unavailable.

6. In such circumstances, the Government will have to

reconsider the issue and arrange funds needed for the

construction of Peringasseri-Chepukulam road in State

Budget. This is a policy matter and this Court may not give WP(C) No.6558/2019

any positive direction to the Government, contended the

learned Government Pleader.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader.

8. It is not in dispute that the respondents had

undertaken the Peringasseri-Chepukulam road construction

work under the PMGSY-I Scheme. Though the work was

started as early in the hear 2011, due to a writ petition filed by

the contractor, the work could not be proceeded for about

seven years. The litigation went against the Government and

this Court directed the Government to pay full amount to the

contractor at the rate demanded by him. The judgment of this

Court considerably eroded the funds available for the

construction of the road. With the funds remaining after

complying with the judgment of this Court, the Government

could not have completed the road construction.

9. It is discernible from the pleadings that substantial

amount of funds are required for completion of road

construction. In such circumstances, this Court cannot pass WP(C) No.6558/2019

any positive direction in the matter. However, this Court hope

that since the Government is convinced about the requirement

of construction of Peringasseri-Chepukulam road and since

the citizens have already surrendered their land for

development of the road, due attention will be paid by the

respondents for resuming the work without much delay.

Writ petition is disposed of with the above

observations.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/13.01.2021 WP(C) No.6558/2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12.3.09

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KSRRDA DATED 12.3.09

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE CONTRACTOR DATED 12.3.09

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT WP(C) NO. 13821 OF 12 DATED 21.10.2015

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATED NIL.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KSRRDA DATED 4.10.2018