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
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
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
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
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
