IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 14TH BHADRA 1929 WP(C).No. 26488 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.SYED SAHABUDEEN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.G.AMEER PULAVAR, PULAVAR MANAI, METTUPALAYAM STREET, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AS LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER FOR THE DISTRICT, PALAKKAD. 4. SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 7. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 8. PALAKKAD MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN PALAKKAD. 9. SRI.K.A.AJEEM, W/O.LATE V.M.KADER SHA, 11/1179, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEDATH (R1 TO R6) BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (R7) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26488 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th September, 2007. J U D G M E N T Heard. Admitted. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for Respondents 1 to 6, and Advocate Sri.Chitambaresh takes notice for 7th respondent. Notice to respondents 8 & 9 are dispensed with. 2. The writ petition is directed against the resolution passed by the Palakkad Municipality, by which, it had decided to establish a lorry stand and bus stand, by acquiring the properties of the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, the proposal to establish a bus stand and a lorry stand in the heart of the city, close to the Big Bazar, will virtually paralyse the entire traffic in the city. It is also contented that establishing of bus stand or lorry stand under the Municipality Act, will not come within the definition of public purpose, defined under the Land Acquisition Act. W.P.(C) No.26488/2007 2 As I have already stated, challenge is only against a resolution passed by the Municipality. No requisition is forwarded and the land acquisition authorities have not initiated any proceedings. So, this writ petition is highly pre-mature. Without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioner to raise all contentions before the appropriate authorities in appropriate time, this writ petition is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.