IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24529 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. AMBUJAN, S/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN KARUNJACKAL, ARAYAN PARAMBIL, PARAYAKADAVU AMRITA PURI, KOLLAM. 2. RAAJI VASU, KUMARACHALIL, AALUMPEEDIKA.P.O., OCHIRA, KOLLAM 3. SOBHANA KUTTAN, KADAYIL KIZHAKETHIL AZHEEKAL PO., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CHIF ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, PWD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS ABD BRIDGES PWD, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THASILDAR, KARUNAGAPALLY. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 7. SARANGADHARAN, KALARIKKAMANNEL ALUMPEEDIKA PO., KLAPANA, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24529 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners claim to be workers in a peeling shed owned by the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent closed the peeling shed as per direction from respondents 1 and 2 on account of construction of Ochira – Ayiramthengu – Azheekkal Bridge by the 1st respondent. The petitioners contention is that on account of action of the State, the petitioners have lost their source of livelihood and therefore, they are entitled to compensation for loss of their livelihood from the State. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioners could not satisfy me that there is any law, which enable the petitioners to claim compensation from the State for loss of work on account of construction of a bridge. The petitioners' remedy lies in seeking closure compensation, if they are eligible, from the 7th respondent. Therefore, without prejudice to such right, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd