IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 31855 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ALAPATT JEWELLERS, ALAPATT HERITAGE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, FRANCIS ALAPATT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS DIVISION), ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R2. A GEERI PAI GOLD-DIAMONDS, LAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-35. ADDL.R3. METRO TEX, MARKETERS AND DISTRIBUTORS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. ADDL.R4. MANAVATTY SILK CENTRE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. ADDL.R5. WHITE PLANET, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.N.MARZOOK ADDL.R6. THE KERALA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682031, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, S.A.MANSOOR (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NOS.5870/09 DATED 12/8/09, 7125/09 DATED 12/8/09, 7076/09 DATED 12/8/09 AND 7124/09 DATED 12/8/09 3389/09 DATED 12/10/2009) ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS FOR ADDLR6 SRI.K.R.ARUN FOR ADDL.R2 & R3 SMT.NASEEMA P.M. FOR ADDL.R4 & R5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31855/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SIGN BOARDS PROVIDED ON THEMEDIANS IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONER'S SHOP. EXT.P2: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE MEDIANS AND THE SIGN BOARDS ERECTED THEREON IN FRONT OF VIMAL SHOW ROOM AT THE NORTHERN END OF M.G.ROAD AND THE SIGN BOARDS ERECTED JUST ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE. EXT.P3: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MEDIAN PROVIDED NEAR PALLIMUKKU JUNCTION IN M.G.ROAD. EXT.P4: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE MEDIANS IN JOSE JUNCTION, CONGRESS HOUSE JUNCTION, PERUMANOOR JUNCTION AND SHIPYARD JUNCTION ON THE M.G.ROAD ITSELF. EXT.P5: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE MEDIAN ON THE BANERJI ROAD IN THE BANERJI ROAD - M.G.ROAD JUNCTION (JUST NEXT TO EXT.P1 MEDIAN), LISIE JUNCTION IN BANERJI ROAD AND PALLIMUKKU IN S.A. ROAD. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON 5.8.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31855 OF 2008 (P) ===================== Dated this the12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a Jewellery, having its showroom at the northern end of MG Road, Ernakulam. Their main complaint is regarding the existence of median dividing M.G.Road. According to the petitioner, in view of the obnoxious height of the median, the view of his building is seriously affected, as a result of which, his business is also adversely affected. Referring to Exts.P1 to P5, petitioner submits that at different locations in the M.G.Road itself, the median constructed is of different heights. It is stated that without adopting any uniformity, since the median is unscientifically constructed, apart from the commercial prospects of business establishments, even the safety of the business establishments itself is put in danger. 2. Pointing out all these, petitioner has filed Ext.P6 representation before the 1st respondent. No action was taken on the request made by him to reduce the height of the median and making it user friendly. It is stated that no action whatsoever has been taken on Ext.P6 and it was therefore the writ petition is filed. WPC 31855/08 :2 : Several business establishments and the Chamber of Chamber of Commerce also have sought impleadment to support the petitioner. 3. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent contending interalia that the height of the central median with the barricade must be a minimum height of 1.2 m from the bottom level. It is stated that the height of the median presently constructed is nearly 1 m from the bottom level. According to the 1st respondent, since the basement height of the petitioner's building is almost above than that of the top of barricade level erected on Central Median, the visibility of the petitioner's building will not be affected in any manner. 4. In this context, petitioner disputes the above averment and in fact has filed an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure the basement height of their building and also to measure and report the height of the central medians. 5. Having regard to the fact that what the petitioner has raised is a common grievance, it is only appropriate that the matter is considered by the 1st respondent. Therefore, I feel atleast at the initial stage, the 1st respondent should examine this WPC 31855/08 :3 : matter, and if the grievance raised by the petitioner and others are to be redressed, needful shall be done to remedy their grievance. 6. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to take note of Ext.P6, the representation filed by the petitioner on 5th of August, 2008 and if necessary, visit the place and take necessary action in the matter. Needful shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment with notice to the parties. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp