IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 30893 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHAMMY THILAKAN, S/O. THILAKAN, PALAPPURAM, JNRA-3, OPP.S.N.WOMEN'S COLLEGE, KOLLAM-1. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. REP. BY SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691001. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES (PWD) KOLLAM-691001. 4. P.K.GURUDASAN, HON'BLE MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND MLA, KOLLAM, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30893 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The controversy in this writ petition regarding the construction of a drainage. According to the petitioner Rs.7,00,000/- was sanctioned out of MLA fund for construction of a drainage in front of SN Women's College, Kollam and covering the same with slabs. Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the 2nd respondent sanctioning the amount and Ext.P2 is the technical sanction that was accorded by Ext.P3 tender was invited. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the work was proposed to be carried out on the western side of the road. It is their case that as against the above, the 3rd respondent got the work shifted to the eastern side of the road. It is stated that aggrieved by the above, Ext.P6 representation was submitted to the District Collector, Kollam, who also ordered to stop further work on the road. 3. The petitioner submits that on receipt of Ext.P6, the District Collector get the site inspected and accordingly Ext.P5 report was submitted. The grievance of the petitioner is that, W.P.(C).No.30893 OF 2010 2 since then there has not been any progress in the matter. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the work sanctioned was for the eastern side of the road and that as far as the western side is concerned, a new proposal has been made and an estimate was prepared and that the same is submitted for approval. 5. Thus, if as stated by the petitioner, the work proposed by Exts.P1 to P3 was for western side of the road, necessarily the work should be carried out on that side of the road. On the other hand, if as submitted by the learned Government Pleader the work is intended for construction of a drainage on the eastern side, it should be completed on that side of the road itself. The rival submissions made show that parties are at dispute even regarding the site where the work is to be done and this controversy cannot be resolved in this petition. Therefore, I direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent will examine rival claims made by the petitioner and the department, and in the light of Ext.P5 report shall pass appropriate orders in the matter, enabling continuance of the work as proposed in Exts.P1 to P3. This shall be done within four W.P.(C).No.30893 OF 2010 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Petitioner to produce copies before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb