IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 27946 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.V.THOMAS, S/O.VARKEY, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI P.O, SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. M.V.MATHAI, MATTAMANAYIL, RAJAKUMARI P.O, SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. VIVEK GEORGE, NEDUVELIL PUTHENPURAKKAL, RAJAKUMARI P.O, SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. P.I.MANI, PUTHET HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI P.O, SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (ROADS & BRIDGES), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (ROADS & BRIDGES), CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ROAD AND BRIDGES), P.W.D.ROADS DIVISION, IDUKKI. 5. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ROADS & BRIDGES), P.W.D.(NEDUMGANDAM SUB DIVISION), NEDUMGANDAM. 6. THE ASST.ENGINEER, (ROADS & BRIDGES), P.W.D. SANTHANPARA SECTION, SANTHANPARA. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 7. P.V.POULOSE, S/O.VARAGHESE, PANEKUDIYIL, RAJAKUMARI P.O., MANJAKUZHI. (R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.8444/2010 ON 29.6.2010). GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR SRI.V.JOHN MANI FOR ADDL.R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 27946/2009. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.23.11.2004. P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.1.3.05. P3. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.15.3.07. P4. COPY OF THE LIST OF ROADS CONVERTED AS MDR AFTER 1.4.2001. P5. COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.9.6.09. P7. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.14.7.2009. P8. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.14.8.2009. P9. COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO HAVE AGREED TO SURRENDER LANDS. P10. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.25.9.09 TO R2. P11. COPY OF THE SKETCH. P12. COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE. P13. COPY OF THE KEY MAP. P14. COPY OF THE MODEL PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE. P15. COPY OF THE KEY MAP. P16. COPY OF THE MODEL PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE. P17. COPY OF THE KEY MAP TO RAJAKUMARY (SOUTH) RAJAKUMARY (NORTH)- kOTTAR ROAD. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R5A. COPY OF THE SKETCH. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 27946 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction commanding the respondents to carry out the widening and improvement to Rajakumary South-Rajakumary North-Kootar, Manjakuzhi B Division road strictly in accordance with the Administrative Sanction granted as per Exhibit P8 based on the estimate already submitted by the Executive Engineer Roads Division, Idukki Within the time limit prescribed therein. b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction prohibiting the respondents from carrying out any work in deviation of the work sanctioned as per Exhibits P7 and P8.” 2. On 6.10.2009, this Court passed the following order: “There will be an interim order directing respondent 2 to 6 not to deviate from Exts.P7 and P8 orders issued by the Government in the matter of execution of works referred to therein, if as on today, the said Government orders have not been modified.” 3. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit accompanying I.A.No. 9239/2010, the 6th respondent has stated thus: “5. It is submitted that the petitioner has stated in Paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition that the Panchayat committee in its meeting held on 12.08.2009 as per Resolution No.V(3) resolved steps would be taken for surrendering the land and for early completion of the Rajakumary South- Rajakumary North-Kottar-Vazhuthanappaly-Manjakuzhy-B Division Periya Kanal Road. In fact this route which is not sanctioned by the Government and petitioner is finding to mislead to this Hon'ble Court and trying to deviate by including Vazhuthanappally which is not the sanctioned route and also were (sic) the petitioner is residing. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to mislead this Hon'ble Court to make understand that the route sanctioned by the Government is through Vazhanappally, that will make clear from the sketch produced by this respondent. Copy of the sketch is already been produced in the Counter Affidavit. It is respectfully submitted that this respondent has no intention to deviate w.p.c.27946/09 2 from Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 issued by the Government in the execution referred to there in. in fact the prayer in the Writ Petition one is for carry out and widening and improvement to Rajakumary South Rajakumar North Kootar, Manjakuzhi B Divison Road strictly in accordance with the Administrative Sanction granted as per Ext.P8 based on the estimate already submitted by the Executive Engineer roads Division, Idukki within the time limit prescribed therein. And another prayer is prohibiting this Respondent from carrying out any work in deviation of the work sanctioned as per Exts.P7 & P8. It is respectfully submitted that this respondent has not objection in allowing these two prayers. Intention of the Writ Petitioner by filing Writ Petition is to adopt the resolution passed by the Panchayat Committee to include Vazhuthanappaly which is not the sanctioned plan as per Exts.P7 and P8. Even though there was an interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court directing this respondent not to deviate from Ext.P7 & P8 issued by the Government from this even though it is clear that this respondent can proceed with the work as per Ext.P7 and P8 the petitioner is obstructing this respondent in the shade of pendency of this writ petition.” The counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition may be disposed of recording the same. Accordingly, recording the above statement of the 6th respondent, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.27946/09 3 “a) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction commanding the respondents to carry out the widening and improvement to Rajakumary South-Rajakumary North-Kootar, Manjakuzhi B Division road strictly in accordance with the Administrative Sanction granted as per Exhibit P8 based on the estimate already submitted by the Executive Engineer Roads Division, Idukki Within the time limit prescribed therein. b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction prohibiting the respondents from carrying out any work in deviation of the work sanctioned as per Exhibits P7 and P8.” “There would be an interim order directing respondent 2 to 6 not to deviate from Exts.P7 and P8 orders issued by the Government in the matter of execution of works referred to therein, if as on today, the said Government orders have not been modified.” 3. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit accompanying I.A.No. 9239/2010, the 6th respondent has stated thus: “5. It is submitted that the petitioner has stated in Paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the Panchayat committee in its meeting held on 12.08.2009 as per Resolution No.V(3) resolved steps would be taken for surrendering the land and Vazhuthanappaly_Manjakuzhy-B division Periya Kanal road. In fact this route which is not sanctioned by the Government and petitioner is finding it mislead to this Hon'ble Court and trying to deviate by including Vazhuthanappally which is not the sanctioned route and also were the petitioner is residing. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to mislead this Hon'ble Court to make understand that the route sanctioned by the Government is through Vazhanappally. That will make clear from the sketch produced by this respondent. Copy of the sketch is already been produced in the counter affidavit. It is respectfully submitted that this respondent has no intention in the counter affidavit. It is respectfully submitted that this respondent has no intention to deviate from Ext.P6 and Ext.P8 issued by the Government in the execution referred to there in. in fact the prayer in the writ petition one is for carry out and widening and improvement to Rajakumary south Rajakumar North Kootar, Manakuzhi B Divison road strictly in accordance with the Administrative Sanction granted as per Ext.P8 based on the estimate already submitted by the Executive Engineer roads Division, Idukki within the time limit prescribed therein. And another prayer is prohibiting this Respondent from carrying out any work in deviation of the work sanctioned as per Ext.P7 and P8. It is respectfully submitted that this respondent has not objection in allowing w.p.c.27946/09 4 these two prayers. Intention of the writ petitioner by filing writ petition is to adopt the resolution passed by the Panchayat Committee to include Vazhuthanappaly which is not the sanctioned plan as per Ext.P7 and P8. Even though there was an interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court directing this respondent not to deviate from Ext.P7 and P8 issued by the Government from this even though it is clear that this respondent can proceed with the work as per Ext.P7 and P8 the petitioner is obstructing this respondent in the shade of pendency of this writ petition.”