IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 13105 of 2009(G) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. CAPTAIN P.V. GEORGE (RETD), S/O. LATE P.K. VARKEY, AGED 84 YEARS, “ANCHORAGE”, MUTTOM, ALUVA - 683 106, ERNAKULAM. 2. LEELA GEORGE, W/O. CAPTAIN P.V. GEORGE, AGED 82 YEARS,” ANCHORAGE”, MUTTOM, ALUVA - 683 106, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION, NBCC PLACE, BHISHMA PITHAMAHA MARG, PRAGATHI VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), N.H. NO. III, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. R1,R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON 14/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13105/2009 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED. P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 22/07/08. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD.25/04/08. P5: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28/04/08. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTTED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 10/06/08. P7: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.07/07/08. P8: COPY OF THE AREAL PHOTOGRAPH. P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 26/01/09. P10: COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 21/05/08. P11: COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 28/04/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.13105 of 2009-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Heard. 2.This writ petition is filed on the plea that the petitioners, a couple, reside in a building in an item of land proposed to be acquired for the Metro Rail Scheme. They plead that they are defence pensioners and are handicapped by various physical situations, including total deafness of the first petitioner for the past 10 years. They further plead that about 95% of the frontage of their residence will be acquired for the construction of the Muttom station of Metro Rail, which will run at a height of 14 metres, leaving just 3 metres at an inconvenient end and such a construction will cause much hardship to them. They also plead that there is a multi-storied WP(C)13105/09 -: 2 :- building in the neighbourhood which would also to be drastically affected by the acquisition. They want a writ of mandamus to be issued to consider an alternative by re-aligning the proposed Muttom station of the Metro project. They contend that public land is available just 200 meters away from the petitioners' property. According to them, that is more congenial to establish the proposed railway station. They accordingly seek a direction that their representation, in that regard, be considered. 3.WP(C).21455/2009 filed by a private limited company seeking similar reliefs regarding the proposed Muttom Metro station, has been dismissed by this Court holding among other things that the planning of the Metro project is a technical matter and it may not be in public interest, for the writ court to issue any direction for change of the proposed line, even if it is in relation to the situs of the stations. Following the said judgment, I do not find any public or statutory WP(C)13105/09 -: 3 :- duty in the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners, more particularly because, any damage caused to the petitioners would stand for being compensated. 4.This judgment also does not, in any manner, preclude any rehabilitation, if the respondents come out with such a programme. In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/100809