IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 35943 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JOSEPH.V.B, S/O. LATE BAPPU, VELIYIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGY SOUTH, KOCHI-682 007. 2. ANTONY JUDE.V.G,S/O.LATE GEORGE, VELIYIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGY SOUTH, KOCHI-682 007. 3. N.X. KUNJAPPAN, S/O. XAVIER, NIRAKKASSERY HOUSE, KUMBALANGY SOUTH. 4. V.T. JOSEPH, S/O. THELESPHER, VELIKKAKATH HOUSE, KUMBALANGY SOUTH. 5. K.G. ANTONY, S/O. GEORGE, KUTTEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI SOUTH. 6. V.R. SEBASTIAN, S/O. RAPHAEL, VELIKKAKATHPARAMBU (H), KUMBALANGY SOUTH. 7. V.R. ELIAS, S/O. RAPHEL, VELIKKAKATHPARAMBU (H), KUMBALANGY SOUTH. 8. SABU, S/O. AUGUSTINE, MUTTUNGAL HOUSE, KUMBALANGY SOUTH. 9. JOHNY, S/O. ALPHONSE, POLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGY SOUTH. BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.1, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. KUMBALANGY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. A true copy of the commission report in WP(c).No.17836/2010 Ext.P2. A copy of the mass representation dated 28.1.2008 with English translation. Respondent's Exhibit Ext.R4(a). True copy of the proposed sketch of Ezhupunna-Kumbalangi Approach road. // true copy // P.S to Judge. J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P(c)No.35943 OF 2010-S --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J The writ petition was filed by some of the residents of South Kumbalangy Island. According to the petitioners they are residing in the eastern side of the Kumbalangy main road, where a new bridge was constructed, connecting Kunbalangy with Ezhupunna in Alappuzha District. Petitioners state that now for the construction of the approach road to the bridge, land has been acquired and the road is under construction. According to the petitioners, if side roads are not constructed on both sides, the residents in that area will have no access to the approach road, mainly for the reason that the approach road which is now under construction will be on a higher level. On this premise petitioners seek a direction from this court, requiring the respondents to construct service roads on both sides of the newly constructed approach road. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed, it has been stated that construction of WPC.No. 35943/201 :2 : service roads, along the side of approach road of eastern and western sides will require acquisition of additional extent of land and structures, which would entail additional financial commitment to the Government. It is stated that such additional expenses is sought to be avoided and access from both sides of the eastern as well as western sides of the bridge is proposed to be provided by constructing suitable ramps which could be completed at a considerable lower cost. 3. In the matter of execution of a project of this nature, the requirement of providing the service roads is an issue which is to be considered by the technical experts and it is for them to decide whether service roads should be provided or whether some other suitable arrangements will meet the requirements of the residents of the area. If the experts have addressed that issue and have taken a decision, unless the decision is proved to be vitiated for reasons such as mala fides or for arbitrariness, this court which lacks any expertise in technical matters, will accept such decision. In this case there is absolutely no pleadings or other material for us to conclude that the decision of the respondents to provide ramps is vitiated on account of any of the aforesaid vitiating circumstances. WPC.No. 35943/201 :3 : 4. That apart when a project of this type is executed nobody can expect the Government to provide direct access to the road to each one of the residents in the area. In this case, the Government with its limited resources, have considered the requirement of access to the public and to avoid acquisition of additional extent of land and to minimize the expenses, have decided to provide suitable ramps. Under the guise of public interest, the petitioners or anybody else for that matter, cannot seek any such direction, from this court compelling the Government to acquire more land and to provide direct access to each of the residents of the area to the approach road to the bridge. We are not satisfied that the petitioners have made out any case warranting interference by this court. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ( J. CHELAMESWAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 35943/201 :4 :