IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35851 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGD.3.249/86, HIGH ROAD, ALUVA 6883101. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PROF.S.SEETHARAMAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.35851 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. This writ petition is filed professedly in public interest by a society which is engaged in the fight against environmental degradation, with the following prayers: “i) To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, direction, or order, directing the respondents to construct the lock-cum- regulator on the eastern side of the Pathalam bridge, instead of the present place as shown in Exhibit P2 map, as per Exhibit P1 order, within a reasonable time which this Hon'ble Court deem think fit in the circumstances of the case. ii) Such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case so as to locate the lock-cum-regulator in an appropriate place on the eastern side of Pathalam bridge as suggested by the experts, if any, appointed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. We have carefully perused the averments in the writ petition and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. WP(C) No.35851 of 2009 - 2 - 3. In our view, the petitioner organization has to necessarily take up the matter with the appropriate authority and place before them its views as regards the location of the lock-cum- regulator. If the organization has got necessary expertise in the matter, such expertise can be shared with the authority concerned so that a more feasible and better alternative can be thought of by the authority concerned. 4. Learned counsel points out that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 representation in this regard and that the petitioner will be satisfied if an appropriate direction is issued to respondent No.2 to consider the same and take an appropriate decision in the matter. The only prayer is that an authorised representative of the petitioner-organization may be given opportunity to be heard in the matter. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the above prayer made by the petitioner is only just and reasonable. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and take a decision on Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner. Before taking a WP(C) No.35851 of 2009 - 3 - decision in the matter, an authorised representative of the petitioner- organization shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard. A decision in the matter shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns