IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6494 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALI MOHAMMAD, SECRETARY, KABARADI MUSLIM SAMAATH,VADAKKUM BHAGOM, KAZHAKKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.K.NIRMALAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SEPCIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA-NH) KODAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR AND MANAGER (T) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PIU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OR ROAD TRANSPORT AND NATIONAL HIGHWAYS - NEW DELHI. 5. STATE OF KERALA, RPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R4 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).6494/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Secretary of 'Kabaradi' Muslim Jama-ath which owns 1.20 Acres of land in Survey No.217/11 and 217/16 of Kazhakoottam Village. In this writ petition he is aggrieved by Ext.P7 notification issued under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act'). 2. Before the notification was issued, petitioner had raised the issue of protecting their religious structures which are likely to fall within the alignment of the highway that was being prepared and the National Highway Authority of India had issued Ext.P5 communication indicting the survey norms, which provides for protection of religious structures. It is also pointed out that in a meeting convened by the District Collector on 17.11.2009, the minutes of which is Ext.P6, it was agreed that the places of worship will be protected. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the notification is in violation of both Exts.P5 and P6. W.P.(C).6494/10 2 3. However as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, Ext.P7 is a notification issued under Section 3A of the Act and once a notification is published, the affected parties have the opportunity to file their objections and the competent authority is to consider objections, conduct necessary enquiries and pass orders thereon. It is thereafter the matter has to be placed before the Government of India. Therefore at this stage, it is for the petitioner to pursue their objections against the notification before the competent authority and it is for that authority to consider the objections raised and pass orders thereon. In that view of the matter, I feel that the writ petition is premature and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs