IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32352 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.ABU, S/O.AHAMMADUNNY, KOOLIYAT HOUSE, MANNAMKUNNU P.O., AGALAD (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 518. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NO.8/1187, ARUMUGHAN COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD - 678 007 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY KOLLAMPALLY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 32352 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of November , 2008 JUDGMENT Sri.Thomas Antony, standing counsel for the first respondent NHAI submits that the first respondent is no longer concerned with the acquisition which is the subject matter of this writ petition. According to him, the acquisition is being taken up by the State Government only. He also submitted that the present writ petition is premature in as much as till date the initial notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act has not been promulgated. 2. Sri.T.R. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to Ext.P3. Referring to the question and answer which are mentioned under serial No. 2, he submitted that the reality is that no Muuhyidheen masjid exists any where near the section of the road referred to therein. The answer to question No.2 is reason for the petitioner's worry since eccentric widening of that section of the road will surely affect the petitioner. He also drew my attention to question and answer which are referred to under serial No.4. He submitted that WPC.No.32352/08 2 it is in view of the questions and answers mentioned as serial Nos. 2 and 4 in Ext.P3 that the petitioner has approached this court. Perhaps the questions and answers mentioned as serial Nos. 2 and 4 in Ext.P3 would have been justification for the petitioner to approach this court. But in view of the definite stand taken by the first respondent before this court, I am of the view that this writ petition is premature. I dispose of this writ petition without considering the grounds raised permitting the petitioner to approach this court on these grounds and any other available grounds once notification under Section 3A is issued by the competent authority to be appointed by the State Government. If notification is already issued, the petitioner can file fresh writ petition without delay. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.32352/08 2