IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19556 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. T.D.VARKEY, S/O.LATE DEVASSY, THEKKANATH HOUSE, MALAYATOOR 683 587. 2. THREASSIAKUTTY, W/O LATE P.J.PAUL, PARAPPALLY HOUSE, MALAYATOOR 683 587. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES DIVISION, PWD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES DIVISION, PWD, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.19556 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are residing at Malayatoor in Ernakulam District. The respondents have started certain work in respect of the construction of a bridge across Periyar River connecting Malayatoor and Kodanadu. According to the petitioners, the proposed alignment is inconvenient to many and the alignment proposed by the petitioners would be more feasible. The petitioners, therefore, filed Ext.P2 representation before the 1st respondent. The petitioners seek a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 and pass orders thereon. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that an alignment has been arrived at and it will not be possible to change that alignment. The petitioners would submit that even then, there is no harm in the 1st respondent considering Ext.P2. The respondents who are experts on the subject have, based on their technical know-how and experience arrived at a particular alignment. The petitioners have no case that they are w.p.c.19556/08 2 experts in the field, who know technical aspects of such alignment. That being so, I do not think that any purpose would be served by directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2. The petitioners are not able to point out any legal provision also which obliges the 1st respondent to consider such representation in the matter of fixation of alignment. Such consideration would also result in delay in completion of the project, which the people cannot afford. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge