IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9517 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.K.BABU RAJAN, S/O. KOCHUPILLAI, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, VANTHUPARAMBIL, P.O. ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670705. BY ADV. MR. K.V.SOHAN MS. SREEJA SOHAN.K. MR. GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL MR. K.DILIP MR. ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROAD & BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.M..V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM KOCHI, PIN - 682025. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN - 670141. R1 BY M. VIJAYKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 9517 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 30th May , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : (a) Call for the records connected with the case ; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the First Respondent to consider and pass a speaking order after hearing the claim of the petitioner regarding the loss hes suffered in the matter of reduction in the toll collecting due to unforeseen reasons which he had pointed out; (c) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing all proceedings initiated by way of revenue recovery at the instances of the first respondent by the second respondent and stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exts P6 and P7 until the first respondent takes a decision on the claim of the petitioner and (d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem, fi and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11.04.2011, urgent notice on admission was ordered directing the the respondents to file statement, simultaneously intercepting the coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts. P6 and P7, on condition that, the petitioner satisfied a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within two weeks. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner preferred W.A. No. 567 of 2011, challenging the same, but in vein. W.P. (C) No. 9517 of 2011 : 2 : 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, the matter does not call for any interference for the reason that the condition imposed by this Court is still to be satisfied by the petitioner; more particularly, when the grievance of the petitioner can only be considered on the basis of specific pleadings, subject to the evidence to be let in. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the grievance projected by the petitioner in Ext. P3 may be caused to be considered by the first respondent before relegating the petitioner to avail such other appropriate remedy. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is ordered accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd