IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30429 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. C.VALLIYAMMA T.C. 26/1179, HOUSE HO.3030, RAJAJI NAGAR PULIMOODU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.SREEJITH, T.C.26/1179 HOUSE NO 3030 RAJAJI NAGAR,PULIMOODU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, T.C.4/1654 MAYOORAM, VRINDAVAN GARDEN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA ROAD FUND BOA FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30429 OF 2010 (C) ===================== Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are mother and son, who are conducting a shop in ½ cents of land in Sy.No.1152 in Thycaud Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. It is stated that the first petitioner is a person with 40% visual disability and that both of them are earning their livelihood from out of their shop in question. 2. Admittedly, the shop is situated in a puramboke land and the shop is to be demolished for widening the road between the Thampanoor and Petta Junction. Ext.P6 report submitted by the Village Officer also recognises that the first petitioner is a visually disabled person and that the second petitioner has met with an accident and that both of them are earning their livelihood from out of their ship. Despite all the above, they are facing eviction and therefore the writ petition is filed. 3. Since admittedly the shop in question is situated in the puramboke land and as the land is required for road widening purposes, if the petitioners are called upon to vacate from the plot, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the steps so WPC No. 30429/10 :2 : taken by the authorities. Therefore on merits, petitioners cannot ask for the intervention of this Court. 4. However, having regard to the circumstances pointed out in Ext.P6 report of the Village Officer and as Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioners before the 1st respondent for allotment of another plot for continuing their business is pending, it is directed that the 1st respondent before whom Ext.P5 is pending shall consider Ext.P5 in the light of Ext.P6 report and pass orders thereon. This the 1st respondent shall do at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances pointed out, it is directed that until a decision is taken on Ext.P5, status quo as on date will be maintained. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp