Mathew vs State Of Kerala Represented By ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10224 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 42735 OF 2022


PETITIONER:

          MATHEW, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH
          PURAYAMPILLIL HOUSE,MUKKUDOM P O, PIN 685562,
          KONNATHADY VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT

          BY ADVS.
          BOBBY GEORGE
          JOY C. PAUL
          ELDHOSE JOY
          BABY SIMON
          NOBLE GEORGE


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY,
          KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT P.O
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN 695001, PIN - 695001

    2     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS DIVISION)
          KUYILUMALA, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU P O,
          IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685603

    3     DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF IDUKKI
          CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU P O, PIN - 685603


          SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 42735/22
                                       2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner makes a limited plea in this Writ Petition that

the 2nd respondent - Executive Engineer, PWD, be directed to take

up Ext.P7 representation preferred by him, to the effect that unless

a strong retaining wall is constructed on his property's boundary,

the construction therein will tumble, on account of loss of lateral

support because of the constructions of the road.

2. The afore request of the petitioner, as made by Sri.Bobby

George, were answered by Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned

Government Pleader, saying that if the petitioner only requires

Ext.P7 representation to be taken up and disposed of in terms of

law, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so;

but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative

declarations on his entitlement to any relief and leave it to the

competent Authority to take a final decision as per law. He added

that the competent Authority may be given full authority to

consider the factual circumstances involved, particularly as to

whether the property of the petitioner has been encroached into by WPC 42735/22

any other entity and consequently without any responsibility being

passed on the Public Works Department.

3. I do not propose to speak on the merits of any of the

rival contentions, since I am of the view that, at the first instance,

the 2nd respondent must take up Ext.P7 representation of the

petitioner and dispose it of, so that all factual disputes can be

resolved to the extent possible.

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and direct the 2 nd

respondent to take up Ext.P7 representation of the petitioner and to

dispose of the same, after affording him, as also any other person

who may be interested, an opportunity of being heard; thus

culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon,

as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise, the 2 nd

respondent is to find that the request of the petitioner is tenable,

then necessary action thereupon will be completed within a period

of three months thereafter.

After I dictated this part of the judgment, the learned WPC 42735/22

Government Pleader intervened to say that, in fact, Ext.P7 has been

preferred before the Government and not before the 2nd respondent.

I find this to be true and therefore, leave liberty to the

petitioner to make a copy of Ext.P7 available to the 2 nd respondent,

along with the certified copy of this judgment; who will thereupon

act as per the afore directions, within the time frame fixed, which

will start from the date on which it is so done.

Sd/-

RR                                      DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                               JUDGE
 WPC 42735/22


                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42735/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          THE TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED BEARING
                    NO 1058/1990 OF RAJAKUMARY SRO DATED
                    29/06/1990
Exhibit P2          TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
                    25/2/2020 GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT

COLLECTOR, IDUKKI AND FORWARDED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE INTIMATION DATED 4/8/2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE PWD MINISTER'S OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P4 THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND THE SOUTHERN PWD ROAD Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KONNATHADY DATED 24/10/2002.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARIPATRAM NO.

1766/C3/2015 PWD DATED 24/2/2015 ISSUED FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT'S OFFICE TO ALL THE CHIEF ENGINEERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/11/2022 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8 THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 10/11/2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF REGISTERING THE EXHIBIT P7 REPRESENTATION Exhibit9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.