IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36830 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SURYA GARDEN'S RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION (SGRA),REGISTERED SOCIETY NO.252/1995,TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHARITABLE SOCIETIES ACT,1955 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SUPRABHA,SURYA GARDENS,SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,T.SUKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.LATE THANUPILLAI, AGED 78, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.5,SUPRABHA,SURYA GARDENS,SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. E.N.RAJU,S/O.LATE T.CHANTHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.8,SGRA SURYA GARDENS,SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SRI.M.S.KALESH, SMT.A.V.PRIYA, SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, SRI.V.VINAY MENON, SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY, SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM). RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - 695 001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,IRRIGATION DIVISION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. THE SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 5. M/S.HEERA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION(P) LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HEERA PARK, M.P.APPAN ROAD,VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN R4 BY ADV. SRI. P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC, CORPORATION OF TVM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 36830 of 2010 C ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is a Residents' Association and the second petitioner is the Secretary of the first petitioner. In this writ petition, their main grievance is against Ext.P12, an order passed by the first respondent permitting the construction of a bridge across the Killi river. It is stated that, on the one side of the Killi river, is situated Soorya Garden where the members of the first petitioner Association are residing and on the other side of the river, the fifth respondent, a company engaged in construction of apartments, owns 237.909 cents of land, where it is building a multi storied apartment complex. It is stated that, on the side of the Soorya Garden, the company purchased 30 cents of land. Recently, the company made Ext.P11 application to the first respondent seeking permission for constructing a bridge across Killi river, connecting both sides of the land in their possession for easy W.P.(C) No.36830/10 : 2 : access to the residents of the Flats. Considering the request, Ext.P12 order was issued by the first respondent which reads as under:- “ I am to invite your attention to the references cited. The Managing Director, M/s.Heera Constructions as per representation cited has requested Government to accord sanction for the construction of a bridge across Killi river connecting their property near Pipinmoode in Sasthamangalam Village, lying on the west-east side of the river. Government have examined the request of Heera Constructions and are of the view that, it is not fair to grant permission to construct a bridge for the exclusive use of a person, group of persons or company. But, it is advisable if it is beneficial to the public at large. Permission can be granted only if the construction is beneficial to the public and subject to the conditions that - 1. The applicant shall file undertaking before the Irrigation authorities to the effect that the proposed bridge and W.P.(C) No.36830/10 : 3 : approach roads shall be open to the public at large. 2. No obstruction or hindrance shall be made to the traffic of the public. 3. The construction of the bridge shall not obstruct the free flow of water or cause any change in the hydraulic status of the river. 4. The construction of the bridge shall be as per design approved by IDRB and construction shall be strictly under the supervision of Irrigation Department. 5. The applicant shall have no claim over the ownership of the bridge at any point of time in future. The ownership of the bridge shall be vested with the Government after its construction. I am therefore to request you to execute an agreement safeguarding the interest of Government of Kerala and if the above conditions are acceptable to the applicant, permission can be granted for the construction of a pucca bridge at the location.” W.P.(C) No.36830/10 : 4 : It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the construction, if completed, will result in increasing the traffic in the area and will cause serious inconvenience to the members of the first petitioner. It is also stated that the beneficiaries of the bridge will be the residents of the apartment complex constructed by the fifth respondent and that the permission now granted is against the previous stand taken by the Government on earlier occasions. 3. Admittedly, the construction is across a river and the construction of the bridge does not touch upon any portion of the land belonging either of the petitioners and the roads leading to the bridge is also a public road. That apart, petitioners also were not in a position to satisfy that any statutory provision has been violated in granting permission to construct the bridge as per Ext.P12 order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government have committed any illegality in issuing Ext.P12 order. The fact that inconvenience W.P.(C) No.36830/10 : 5 : is caused or that there will be increase in the traffic are no reason to call Ext.P12 an illegal order. In that view, even if the ultimate beneficiary of Ext.P12 will be the residents of the apartment complex, still so long as Ext.P12 cannot be said to be illegal, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P12. I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge