IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23708 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.V.DAMODARAN BAMBIAR, S/O.KANNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, MUDEYAD DESOM, TEMPLE LANE, P.O. MUNDAYAM, KANNUR 670597. 2. K.PAVITHRAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, MUDEYAD DESOM, MANASAROVAR, P.O.MUNDAYAM, KANNUR 670597. 3. V.V.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, MUDEYAD DESOM, SOUPARNIKA, P.O.MUNDAYAM, KANNUR 670597. 4. M.P.SAHADEVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, MUDEYAD DESOM, NAVANEETH, P.O.MUNDAYAM, KANNUR 670597. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G-586 SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGH WAYS, NEW DELHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. R1 BY ADV.THOMAS ANTONY, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.23708 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners reside in Kannur district. They state that they are aggrieved by the proposed alignment of Valapattanam- Chala bye-pass road. The fixation of alignment for a highway is fundamentally a matter of public interest. It needs exemplary technical expertise. Under normal circumstances, courts will loath interfere with the alignments, except in exceptionally exceptional cases where the fixation of the alignment was itself a malafide exercise with colourable, oblique motives. But such a plea, to be made and proved, is often quite impossible, unless there is cogent material for the court to conclude in support of such contentions. However, adverting to the facts as projected by the petitioners and on a reading of the representation made by them to the first respondent, it appears that they try to place for the consideration of the first respondent the plea that there is an alternative, which they would like the first respondent to consider. This again is a matter within the technical wisdom of WPC.23708/09 Page numbers the first respondent, which, in so far as the project in question is concerned, has an advisory role as far as the Government of India and State Government are concerned. While the petitioners state that the alternate feasible alignment suggested by them would be cheaper and would traverse through paddy fields and other uninhibited areas, the alignment, as of now, going by the drawings made by them, would impair very many residential buildings. The reason why an alignment has been so fixed is essentially within the technical wisdom of the first respondent. It is not for this Court to suggest any particular matter for reconsideration. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, the materials on record generate a situation where it may be appropriate for the first respondent to look into the plea of the petitioners, particularly when the project is yet to reach even its infancy in so far as its execution is concerned. For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing anything on merits, the first respondent is directed to take up Ext.P4, look WPC.23708/09 Page numbers into it and consider whether any action need follow on the basis of that representation. If it is found that it may be feasible to consider the request in Ext.P4, the first respondent would advise respondents 2 to 4 accordingly. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.24/8.