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. 36036 of 2010(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. K.K.HASSAN, DOOR NO.32/1858, SRA NO.34, SURABHI ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024. 2. K.K.HUSSAIAN, DOOR NO.32/1858, SRA NO.34, SURABHI ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.BOSE, SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, RAILWAY BOARD, RAILWAY BHAVAN,NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI,PIN-600 109. 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (WORKS), DISTRICT OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 024. 5. THE AREA MANAGER, ERNAKULAM JUNCTION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 036. R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI. C.S. DAIAS, SC, RAILWAYS SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR,SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) NO.36036 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners submit that they purchased a property on either side of railway track. They made an application for right of way. When orders were not passed, they approached this court by filing W.P(C) No.4917/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing the 4th respondent to consider the application. It was also directed that in case, the order passed is adverse to them, it will be open to the petitioners to pursue the matter before Higher Authorities of the Railway. 2. The 4th respondent considered the matter and passed Ext.P8 order rejecting the request. Thereupon, the petitioners submitted Ext.P9 application before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the petitioners submit before me that Ext.P9 application has been acknowledged by the office of the 2nd respondent. 3. In this writ petition, what is complained of by the petitioners is that so far orders have not been passed on Ext.P9 and the petitioners seek direction for its consideration. W.P(C) NO.36036 OF 2010 2 4. I heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. As already seen, the only prayer made by the petitioner is to require the 2nd respondent and to pass orders on Ext.P9. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P9 has been acknowledged by the office of the 2nd respondent. I see no reason to decline the prayer sought for. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9, this the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four months of production of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dmb