IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13954 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MATHAI CYRIAC, SON OF MATHAI, KATTOKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PWD DEPARTMENT, ROADS AND BRIDGES DIVISION, SECRETARIAT, GOVT. OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD DEPARTMENT, ROADS AND BRIDGES DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA N.H.,RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 13954 OF 2009 (L) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance is against the alignment fixed for the Thiruvalla Bypass, as part of upgradation of Muvattupuzha- Chengannur (MC) Road coming under Phase II of the KSTP. According to the petitioners, if the land is acquired for the road as per the alignment fixed in Ext.P1, their properties will be acquired. Therefore, petitioners made suggestions for laying the road through an alternate alignment. That suggestion was not considered and therefore have approached this Court by filing writ petitions resulting in Ext.P5 judgment directing consideration of the matter and staying dispossession in the meanwhile. Accordingly, the matter was considered and Ext.P7 order has been passed . 2. The reasoning contained in Ext.P7 reads as under:- Government have examined the case in detail. The sketch submitted by the petitioner's was assessed comparing with the road alignment prepared by the international consultant appointed by the Government. The alignment plan produced by the petitioner's was not prepared to scale and it did not follow any engineering or IRC standards stipulated for roads. The petitioner's road alignment affects structures and properties of other people. Their proposal is also not viable as there would WPC 13954/09 :2 : be three sharp curves in it. 3. By no stretch of imagination, can this Court say that the reasoning assigned in Ext.P7 are irrational or perverse calling for interference. On the other hand, the order shows that the Government have examined the proposal submitted by the petitioners and considered the same to be not viable. That apart, it is also stated that if the suggestion of the petitioners is accepted, that will affect structures and properties of other people and that there will be three sharp curves in the road. These reasons are certainly valid considerations, and therefore, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P7. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp