IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1112 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SWATHI KUMAR, S/O.VIKRAMAN NAIR, AGED 42, KALPAKA MEDICALS, SUMA COMPLEX, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RENJISH KUMAR, S/O.NATARAJA PILLAI, ARUL JYOTHI, MANGALAKKAL, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.1112/2010-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the construction of a compound wall made by the K.S.R.T.C encompassing its Southern Boundary. The first petitioner is a trader near the K.S.R.T.C Bus Depot, Kattakkada, and the second petitioner is a parent of a child studying in Government Lower Primary School, Kattakkada. The complaint raised is that the said construction has really cut off the access to the shops and the students have to travel a long distance to reach the school. Ext.P2 is the representation said to have been filed before the Government in the matter. What they require is only installation of a wicket gate of 10 feet width in the compound wall and for a direction to the respondents to take a decision on Ext.P2 representation. 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out therein that there was an earlier attempt against the construction of the compound wall by the K.S.R.T.C, at the instance of the adjacent building owner and O.S.No.415/2006 was filed before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking the same relief and the said suit was dismissed. Another suit, O.S.No.696/2009 was W.P.(C). No.1112/2010 -:2:- filed before the Munsiff Court, Nedumangad and the Court on 25/11/2009 in an inter locutory application ordered that “order is not a fetter for the respondents to construct the compound wall or any buildings in their property as per the building rules by obtaining permit from the authority concerned without affecting free flow of air and light to (Plaint A Schedule) property”. It is stated that the said order was issued after examining the Commission Report. It is also pointed out that the respondents have obtained building permit from the Kattakkada Grama Panchayat for the proposed construction and that the request of the petitioners was examined at various levels and only after fully convincing that there will not be any hindrance for the public, decision was taken to proceed with the construction. In view of the physical obstruction, police protection was also sought for. Ext.R2(b) is the report submitted by the District Transport Officer, Kattakkada to the Chairman and Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. In that it is pointed out that certain access for the persons to approach the shops in question are available. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that unless appropriate orders are passed, the ingress and egress from the bus stand to the shopping complex will be blocked and the students will have to travel long distance to reach their institutions. It is further submitted that W.P.(C). No.1112/2010 -:3:- the Government may be directed to take a decision with regard to their complaints. Ext.P3 is a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.696/2009 and the order passed in I.A.No.5444/2009 dated 25/11/2009 is also placed on record as Ext.P4. 4. The question involved herein is a dispute regarding the claim for access by putting up a wicket gate. It is only a civil right which has to be established in appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that already the Chairman and the Managing Director have rejected the prayer of the petitioners and similarly placed persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no specific reply has been given so far. Ext.P2 shows that it was submitted by a Samyukta Samithi. If Ext.P2 has already been received and a final decision has already been taken by the Chairman and the Managing Director, the copy of the reply will be furnished to the petitioners. The petitioners, if so advised, will be free to approach the Civil Court in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms