IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 19865 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- MINI JOSHY, W/O. JOSHY, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, 29/646(1), LANE NO.34, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI -19. BY ADVS. SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683 513. 3. PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM - 683 513. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON.P.MANGUZHA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19865 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :- EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF DEED NO.3016/91 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PARAVOOR EXECUTED BY FRANCIS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25-07-1991. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.19339 FOR THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXHIBIT P1 DOCUMENT DATED 27-05-2008. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAVOOR. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTIES. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02-07-2011 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :- NIL. TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE amk. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19865 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 8.09 ares of land in Sy.No.254/8 of Paravoor Village, Ernakulam Taluk, a property situated on the side of Vazhikulangara -Athani road. According to the petitioner when retaining walls were constructed on the road, taking note of the fact that the adjacent properties are situated on a lower level, ramps have been provided by the respondents. However in so far as the property of the petitioner is concerned, no such ramp has been provided and complaining of the above the petitioner made Ext.P5 representation to the respondents. Even to that representation there was no response and therefore the writ petition is filed. 2. On behalf of the 3rd respondent a statement has been filed contending that the road in question is not one vested in the Municipality and that they have no W.P.(C) No. 19865 OF 2011 :2 : responsibility to provide the ramp as claimed by the petitioner. 3. Now that the road is not vested with the 3rd respondent necessarily maintenance must be the responsibility of respondents 1 and 2. In such situation it was for the aforesaid respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for constructing ramps in the petitioner's property as in the case of others. 4. Having regard to the fact that Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner urging the aforesaid claim is pending before the 2nd respondent, I direct the 2nd respondent to take note of Ext.P5, consider the same and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-