IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28221 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.SASIDARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. PERAVAN, KATTIL PARAMBA, "CHALANAM" VENGERI.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673010, ON BEHALF OF AND AS LA CONVENER OF THADAMPATTUTHAZHAM-KANNADIKKAL, VENGERI UNDERPASS VIRUDHA ACTION COMMITTEE, P.O.VENGERI, KOZHIKODE-673010. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SMT.K.K.PREETHA SMT.SUSAN JACOB RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION) TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PW& TPT, DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695033. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTY OF GOVERNMENT OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGH WAYS, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION OF KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. 5. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTTION UNIT, KRISHNA KRIPA, AISWARYA ROAD, CIVIL STATION.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673020. 6. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS & TECHNOCRATS LTD. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT(ICT PVT.LTD HEAD OFFICE, A-6, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI-110016. 7. NIRAV-NETAJI RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, VENGERI 76.914, P.O.VENGERI, KOZHIKODE-673010. ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI, CGC FOR R3 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R5 G.P. SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.28221 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. W.P.(C) is filed for direction to the respondents to construct the underpass beneath the fly-over with sufficient width for two lane traffic. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The newspaper report with photograph showing the construction of the underpass is also produced in court. Government Pleader has filed a statement contending that the width of the underpass is sufficient to provide two lane traffic as it's width is 8 metres. Counsel for the petitioner expressed the apprehension that both sides of the road passing through the underpass may be left idle and if tarring is done only in the central portion, then two lane traffic may be difficult. According to him, the width of the road on either side is 13 metres which is denied by the Government Pleader. In any case we feel there is complete lack of vision on the part of the respondents because when 2 a permanent construction of this nature is made, they should have taken into account future development and possibility of increase in width of the road on either side. However, since underpass is already constructed at a massive cost, we do not think anything is possible except to direct respondents to keep the full width of the road passing beneath the underpass tarred with a median so that smooth two lane traffic beneath the fly-over is possible on both ways. W.P.(C) is disposed of with the above direction. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms