IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10222 of 2009(S) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE PUDUKKAD SAMAGRA VIKASANA SAMITHY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOBY A. PULIKKAN, ADVOCATE, AGED 41, S/O. ANTO, PULLIKKAN HOUSE, PULIKKAN ROAD, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, UNION MINISTRY FOR SHIPPING ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA CORPORATE OFFICE, G 5 AND 6, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 75. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, ARUMUGHAN COLONY, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA. 4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA, N.H.A.I, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA. ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.10222 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This public interest litigation is filed for a direction to the respondents to either construct a fly over or an under pass, by having a technical feasibility study with intention to avoid any accidents and other blockades at the Pudikad Centre. When the matter came up for consideration earlier, this Court had directed the second respondent to form a technical committee to conduct a study and submit a report. In pursuance of the same, a report is filed in which the committee after observing the site and making a physical study opined as follows: “i) As per IRC:62 – 1976, grade separations should be provided at intersection of divided rural highways, if the ADT on the cross road within next 5 years exceeds 5000. ii) As per IRC:92, an interchange is only justified when total traffic on all arms of the intersection is in excess of 10000 PCUs/Hr. WP(C) No.10222 of 2009 - 2 - iii) As per IRC-103, grade separated pedestrian facility can be provided if vehicular traffic demands uninterrupted flow as associated with major arterial roads and expressways. Further, the volume of pedestrian crossing at these junctions was also quite high. The committee is accordingly of the opinion that though junction does not qualify for flyover/interchange as per IRC-92, ADT on the cross roads will certainly cross 5000 in next 5 years and hence grade separation is required at the junction as per IRC-62. Keeping in view vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic, the committee recommended that a vehicular cum pedestrian underpass of 5mx15m size (7m carriageway +1.5mx2 paved shoulders on either side+0.25mx2 kerb shyness on either side +2mx2 footpath on either side) can be provided at Pudukkad junction (Km 280/550). This being just 400m away from the junction at Km 280/950, the vehicular/pedestrian traffic coming from this junction can also use this underpass for crossing the NH and hence median opening proposed at KM 281/050 may be closed.” WP(C) No.10222 of 2009 - 3 - 3. The second and third respondents submits that they will implement the recommendations of the technical committee expeditiously and steps in this regard have already been taken. In view of this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be closed. Accordingly the writ petition is closed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns