IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 W.P.(C).No.15503 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER:- -------------------- 1. THE CONSUMER GUIDANCE & RESEARCH SOCIETY OF INDIA, REGD.NO.K.141/79, P.B.NO.126, KOTTAYAM 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ADVOCATE BOBBY MANI 2. THE KOTTAYAM SOCIAL ACTION COUNCIL REGD. NO.K.304/99, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT CHANDY ABRAHAM. 3. ADVOCATE SANTHOSH KANDAMCHIRA, CONVENER, KOTTAYAM JANAKEEYA PRATHORIDHA SAMITHY, KOTTAYAM-686 001 4. FR. K.V.PAULOSE, S/O.VARGHESE AGED 70 YEARS, KALLAPPARA HOUSE, CHELLIOZHUKKAM MUTTAMPALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. W.P.(C).NO.15503 OF 2008-S - 2 - 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 5. SRI. V.N.VASAVAN MEMBER OF THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, KOTTAYAM-1. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW & SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU R4 BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15503 of 2008-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. Petitioners 1 to 3 are Societies, registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, and the 4th petitioner is a person directly interested in the matter. 2. When the matter had been posted before us for admission, we had directed the learned counsels appearing for the respondents to get appropriate instructions in the matter and also to file appropriate affidavits of the contesting respondents. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by us, respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit. In that, at paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, they have stated as under: “2. The above Writ Petition is filed praying for issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from implementing the proposed project namely construction of a fly over between Nagambadam and Manipuzha at Kottyam without conducting a feasibility study and to declare that such proposal is malafide. It is submitted that the project still remains in the proposal stage. The project will be implemented after considering all complaints and after conducting detailed studies in the subject matter. No investigation work has been taken up in the matter as the investigation estimate has not been approved by the Government. WP(C).No.15503 of 2008-S - 2 - 3. All the apprehensions raised in the Writ Petition are unfounded. All genuine complaints and grievances felt by the local people and the impact of the project on the environment will be taken note of at the stage of detailed investigation on the project is carried out. 4. It is submitted that proposal for construction of a bye-pass in the form of fly over has emanated from the search for some measures to lessen the congestion of vehicular traffic in Kottayam town. The project is envisaged to be executed under the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis with zero expenditure on land acquisition. The entire project is evolved only for the interest of public at large”. 4. The assertions made in the counter affidavit is not seriously opposed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, for the present, it would be suffice to place on record the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and dispose of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits pleaded in the writ petition. We do so. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/dk Judge