IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6224 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.P.ABDURAHIMAN, P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, KOYAS MANZIL, CHUNKATHARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SRI.E.S.ASHRAF. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ROADS & BUILDINGS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ROADS) DIVISION, MANJERI. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ROADS) SUB DIVISION,MANJERI. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ROADS) SECTION, THAZEPALAM, TIRUR - 676101. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 6224 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers. “i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P11; ii) declare that the petitioner for no fault of him prevented from smooth collection of toll, and hence no liability for payment toll instalments can be fastened upon him; iii) issue a writ order or direction commanding the respondents ascertain the loss sustained by the petitioner due to the destruction of toll both, barricades by the anti social elements ad the wages paid to staffs and reimburse the petitioner the loss sustained by him to the tune of Rs.203680 forthwith; iv) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the representation, Ext.P12 Wpc 6224/2011 2 and P18 submitted by the petitioner and absolve him from the liabilities in the peculiar facts and circumstances so also to pay damages to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.203680/-. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the grievance as projected under Ext.P12 followed by Ext.P18 reminder may be directed to be considered within a specified time. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court does not think it fit to go into the merits of the case. The writ petition is therefore disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P12 and P18 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for taking further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lgk