Kerala High Court
Rajani Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 43371 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
RAJANI RAJESH
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O.RAJESH, PONATH HOUSE, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE,
KODUGALLOORTALUK, TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680671
BY ADVS.
ANOOP KRISHNA
V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR
JENNY THANKAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PWD),
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
GOVT SECRETARIAT, MUSUEUM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR , ERNAKULAM,
KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROAD DIVISION,
NORTH PARAVUR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VADAKKEKKARA
OFFICE OF THE POLICE STATION, VADAKKEKKRA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683516
5 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
THE NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, KOCHI,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
6 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY, SUB DIVISION,
NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683513
SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP, SRI. K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43371 OF 2023 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be the wife of Sri.Rajesh, who, she
says, unfortunately met with an accident at 'S Valavu at Malliankara,
Moothakunnam, North Paravur, while riding a motor cycle, having hit a
pothole in the road. She says that he has sustained very serious injuries
and is liable to be compensated by the competent Authorities; but that
since no action has been forthcoming, she has preferred Ext.P4
representation before respondents 5 and 6 - who are the Project
Director and the Assistant Executive Engineer of the National
Highways Authority of India. She, therefore, prays that the said
Authority be directed to take up Ext.P4 and dispose it of, after hearing
her, without any avoidable delay.
2. However, when this matter was called today, Sri.Salil
Narayanan - learned Standing Counsel for the National Highways
Authority of India ('NHAI'), submitted that a counter affidavit has been
filed on record by his client, wherein, it has been explained that the
road in question is not the part of the 'NHAI' and is operated and
maintained by the State Public Works Department (PWD), the
Executive Engineer of which is the 3 rd respondent. He submitted that,
therefore, the question of compensation to the petitioner will have to
be decided by either that Authority or the District Collector, who can
act as per the applicable statutes.
3. Smt.Vidya Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader, however,
controverted the afore submissions of Sri.Salil Narayanan, saying that,
according to her instructions, the road comes under the jurisdiction of
the 'NHAI', and therefore, that it may be their obligation to answer the
claim for compensation with respect to the accident suffered by the
petitioner's husband.
4. It is, therefore, clear from the afore rival positions adopted by
the State PWD and the 'NHAI' that, there is a disputation as to the
nature of the road and its ownership. Obviously, therefore, another
competent Authority will have to hear the petitioner and take a
decision on her request.
5. As matters now stand, it is virtually without much of a dispute
that the petitioner's husband is seriously injured, but the question
whether the accident that happened on account of a pothole in a road,
as it asserted by her; and which Authority the said stretch is obligated
to be maintained are issues that cannot be considered by this Court, at
least at the first instance, while it acts under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, since it would involve assessment of facts and
documentary materials.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view, that the District Collector
must immediately hear the petitioner and take a decision on her
request as expeditiously as is possible. Of course, for this purpose, the
petitioner must be given liberty to make an appropriate representation
before the said Authority. I also record that this course is not opposed
by any of the respondents.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition to the limited
extent of leaving liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate
application for compensation, or such other reliefs before the 2nd
respondent - District Collector; and if this is done within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the same
shall be considered by the said Authority, after affording her, as also
any other persons/Authority, an opportunity of being heard; thus
culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the
date on which the representation is received by him.
Needless to say, even though this Court has not entered into the
merits of any of the rival contentions, it will be up to the District
Collector to consider all of them in its proper perspective and his
opinion on each of the contention of the petitioner shall be reflected in
the resultant order.
I also clarify that the afore directions have been issued to the
District Collector also in his capacity as the Chairperson of the District
Disaster Management Authority; and hence this will also be kept in
mind by him, while completing the afore exercise.
It also goes without saying that the right of the petitioner, to
approach a competent Civil Court for further compensation, apart from
what is ordered by the District Collector, is also left open.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/6.2
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43371/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE DATED ON 15.6.2022 ISSUED BY
THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE MEDICAL COLLEGE
TRISSUR.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT FOR COMPENSATON
ON 20.09.2022.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO
39279 OF 2022 DATED 19.06.2023 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE
THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 19.12.2023 BY THE
PETITIONER
