IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3860 of 2010(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAISAPPAN, S/O.MATHEW, KANDATHIL HOUSE, EDATHWA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. C.P.SAJI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (PWD), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD), ROADS DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD), ROADS DIVISION, KUTTANAD, MAMCOMBA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY, EDATHWA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDATHWA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K. MEERA R4 ADV. MR. P.VINODKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 3860 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.07.2007 OF KUTTANAD MLA TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSALATION EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 01.10.2009 WITH ENGLISH TRANSALATION. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16.11.2009 EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 15.10.2009 WITH ENGLISH TRANSALATION. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.01.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSALATION. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA CONGRESS, KUTTANAD DATED 15.01.2010 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSALATION. EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE OF THE PROTECTIVE WALL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 3860 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT J. Chelameswar, C.J. The Writ Petition is filed with the prayers as follows : i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 2 and 3 to complete the repairing of the damaged protective works of east approach Karukayil bridge in Edathwa SA College Chakkulam Road in a time bound manner as directed by this Hon'ble Court. AND ii. Grant such other reliefs that are found necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Writ Petition itself is styled as a public interest litigation. The dispute revolves around the execution of the certain public works. The nature of the public work as described at paragraph 2 of the writ petition is as follows: “2. Karukayil Bridge-Attatheeram road passes beneath to the Karukeyil Bridge. There is no direct access to the Edathwa Chakkulam Public Road from its northern side. Karukayil Bridge is the one of the bridges constructed across the Karukayil W.P (C) No. 3860 of 2010 2 Thodu. The above bridge was constructed over the Karukayil thodu about 60 years back. Since the land on the northern sides of the above said bridge is situated 20 metres below the road level there is no direct access to the public road from the northern side. But there is a road on the southern side of the public road starting from the eastern end of Karukayil bridge. There is a retaining wall constructed to protect the bridge. Near to the retaining wall a small road is situated beneath to the bridge popularly known as Attutheeram road. Due to the oldage the retaining wall constructed under the Karukayil bridge was damaged and was situated in a dangerous manner to the people traveling through the Attutheeram road for the last few years. Though there was no sufficient width to the Attutheeram road situated under the Karukayl bridge petitioner and other residents are mainly depending for their journey on this road.” 3. In view of the fact that the retaining wall referred to above is damaged, various representations were made to the authorities concerned requesting them to take up urgent steps to have renovation or reconstruction of the retaining wall. Persuaded by the said representations, the respondents undertook the process of reconstruction. Tenders were called for to execute the work. The tender notification is dated 01.10.2009. Even according to the petitioner 75 % of the work is completed and thereafter the work was stopped for various reasons. The details of which may not be necessary. W.P (C) No. 3860 of 2010 3 4. When the matter is taken up on an earlier occasion, the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt. K. Meera was called upon to obtain instructions as to the state of affairs regarding the work in question. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that the 4th respondent Panchayath has raised certain objections regarding the execution of the works and therefore the work could not be completed. It is stated in the report submitted on behalf of the second respondent in this regard as follows: “During the progress of the work a notice was served to the Assistant Engineer, PWD Roads Section, Edathua from the Secretary, Edathua Grama Panchayat for stopping the work arguing that the construction of the protective wall will reduce the waterway of the thodu. The Assistant Engineer has addressed the Secretary explaining the necessity of such a construction and requested to allow to complete the work as it is highly beneficial to the local public. But till date no decision has been made and informed”. 5. The 4th respondent, though served and represented by a counsel, has not chosen to file an affidavit explaining its stand so far, despite the fact that the matter is pending on the file of this Court from 15.02.2010, more than a year. Even today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel is not in a position to assist the Court and seeks time to obtain instructions, which request we declined, as it is an unreasonable request. W.P (C) No. 3860 of 2010 4 In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to complete the work in question expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from today. In view of the conduct the 4th respondent, we record that, the 4th respondent is forfeited his right to raise any objection whatsoever for the said construction. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd