IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 17268 of 2006(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.AHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.KUNHAMMAD, AYOLI HOUSE, OORAKAM.P.O, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI VIJU ABRAHAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17268 of 2006(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Rt.)NO.1852/2006/RD DATED 01.03.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT) NO.3077/2006/DMD DATED 02.06.2006 EXT.R1(b) : TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Rt) No.3848/06/DMD DATED 12.09.2006 /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 17268 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant necessary sanction to start the repair work covered by Ext.P1 (item Nos. 4 to 7 only). 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 04.10.2006 stating that works in question have already been cancelled for the reasons stated therein and that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the writ petition. When the matter came up for consideration on 03.11.2006, the following interim order was passed : “ It is a sad state of affairs that the Govt. does not have funds even to provide for the basic necessities of the people. They cannot repair the infrastructure which were damaged by natural calamities. In the name of lack of funds they are putting of the repair of the damaged infrastructure. I am of the opinion that this is not what is expected of a Govt. which proclaims itself to be standing for a W.P.(C)No. 17268 OF 2006 2 welfare State. In the above circumstances, I direct the respondents to place concrete proposals before me as to what they propose to do about the cancelled works as per Exts.R1(b) and within what time they would be able to muster enough funds to do the work. A report in this regard shall be filed within three weeks.” 3. Pursuant to the above interim order, the respondents have filed an additional counter affidavit dated 16.11.2006, wherein it is contended at paragraph '5' as follows: “The petitioner in the Writ Petition is not a party involved in the case of sanctioning of work and is not aggrieved by any commission or omission of the Government and hence, he has no locus standi to pray before the court for compelling the Government to take up the work. Government has issued Ext. R1(a) and Ext.R1 (b) orders under compelling circumstances. However, the Government shall examine the three works which were cancelled as stated in the Writ Petition and shall consider to execute the same at the earliest and further undertakes that the Government shall take all W.P.(C)No. 17268 OF 2006 3 possible measures to execute the work mentioned in Ext.R1(b) subject to the availability of funds.” 4. Obviously, the cause of action pertains to the state of affairs of the road in 2006, which was sought to be repaired and sanctioned vide Ext.P1 Government Order, but subsequently cancelled as per the Government Order dared 02.06.2006. However, in view of the contents of paragraph'5' of the additional counter affidavit dated 16.11.2006, no further orders are called for; more so when no reply affidavit has been filed from the part of the petitioner and the cause of action has become stale by this time. In the said circumstance, the writ petition is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities or pursue the remedy in respect of the subsequent turn of events, if any cause of action still subsists. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk