IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1794 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.C. KIDANGOOR, S/O. CHACKAPPAN, AGED 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT KIDANGOOR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.PAULACHAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, EDAMALAYAR PROJECT, ANGAMALY. 4. THURAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THURAVOOR P.O., ANGAMALY VIA., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 1794 OF 2008 S --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L. DATTU, C.J: Petitioner is a public spirited citizen. He has filed this Writ Petition against the construction of Edamalayar Irrigation Project canal across Kirpex Kidangoor Road. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the crossing of the canal across the road would necessitate a bridge and the bridge will be at a height of fifteen feet over the canal. According to petitioner, it would affect the vehicular traffic as also the pedestrians. 2. It is stated in the Petition that the petitioner had approached the Executive Engineer of Edamalayar Project Division, inter alia, requesting him to construct the bridge by adopting syphon system. It appears that the Executive Engineer has rejected the suggestions made by petitioner and other public spirited citizens, on the ground that it is not feasible to go in for syphon system and further it would involve heavy expenditure. 3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Executive Engineer, it is stated in the Petition, that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer and it is pending. 4. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, petitioner is before this Court for the following reliefs. They are as under: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to construct the canal in the present proposal: (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to construct the canal under `siphon' system only". WP(C) NO.1794/08 S 2 5. Parallel proceedings are impermissible. It is the specific case of the petitioner that against the order of the Executive Engineer, he has filed appeal before the Chief Engineer and the appeal is pending. If that is so, petitioner will have to wait till the Chief Engineer passes an order on the appeal filed by the petitioner. If for any reason, there is any delay in passing the order, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application before the appellate authority to hear the matter out of turn. In view of the above, we dismiss the Writ Petition for the present. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk/DK.