IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 437 of 2010(D) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M S CHANDRASEKHARAN,AGED 8O, S/O.SANKARAN,ADVOCATE,"SURYAKANTHI",AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KRALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,P W D,THRISSUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LAND ACQUISITION, CORPORATION OFFICE AT THRISSUR. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,P W D (R & B)CENTRAL CIRCLE,ALUVA. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 437 OF 2010 (D) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P7 and to direct the respondents to complete the construction of the Model Road at Ayyanthole, on the basis of the original alignment where the median had a width of 1.5 feet and on the sides no space was left for drawing any electric cables. According to the petitioner, if acquisition is completed as sought for by him, it will not result in acquisition of property in the front portion of his residential premises, in which case, inconvenience caused to him will be much less than what is likely to be caused now. 2. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.24361/09. In that writ petition, considering the grievances, this Court rendered Ext.P6 judgment, directing that if the petitioner makes a representation to the 2nd respondent therein, the same will be considered. Accordingly, representation was made and that resulted in Ext.P7 order. It is challenging Ext.P7 the writ petition is filed. 3. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that each of the objections WPC 437/10 :2 : raised by the petitioner have been dealt with and convincing reasons have been given for retaining the alignment that is now proposed by the Department. Having gone through Ext.P7 in its entirety, I do not find any ground to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the same is arbitrary or perverse warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp