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. 30283 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S. GRAND TRADERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER N.KUNHALAN, S/O. MOHAMMED, AGED 57 YEARS, N.H.17, VELIMUKKU SOUTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. M/S.GRAND EXPORTERS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER N.KUNHALAN, N.H.17, VELIMUKKU SOUTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORTS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, REGIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS (P.W.D.), CALICUT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. (* - ADDRESS OF THE 4th RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS “THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, (MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NO.2/2175-B, KRISHNA KRIPA, AISWARYA ROAD, P O CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020” AS PER ORDER DATED 27-10-2009 IN I.A.13282/ 09) ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY KALLAMPALLY FOR R4 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 ASGI: SRI T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.No.30283 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P-1 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDINGS EXHIBIT P-2 CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (KVAT) EXHIBIT P-2(a) CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (KVAT) EXHIBIT P-3 PROPOSED PLAN OF the RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P-3(a) UPGRADATION PLAN – DO- EXHIBIT P-4 ALTERNATE PLAN OF THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P-5 REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4th RESPONDENT and SENDING RECEIPT TO OTHER RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P-6 REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE the 3rd RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A to JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.30283 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are registered partnership firms they are engaged in the business of Ceramic Tiles, Sanitary Wares and Fittings. They are having a five storied building at Velimukku in Malappuram District. The building is situated in the Southern side of the National Highway at Velimukku. According to the petitioners the building itself would cost an amount of Rs.5 crores. 2. The apprehension is that in the light of the proposal for widening NH.17, it will result in the demolition of the building now constructed by the petitioners. There are 40 employees directly working there and the petitioners are paying substantial amount towards sales tax also. 3. Exts.P3 and P3(a)are the copies of the widening and upgradation plan at 271 to 272 Kms. The petitioners' building is situated in 271/500. According to the petitioners the widening as proposed now will only add to the curve and therefore it is only the interest of the parties that the alignment is properly fixed. W.P.(C)No.30283 of 2009 2 4. Seeking for deviation in the alignment the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the 4th respondent. 5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter. It is the case of the 4th respondent that if the alignment as proposed by the petitioners is accepted, that will affect the residential buildings on the other side. When compared to the hardship that is involved in the shifting of the residences of local people to that of the business of the petitioner, the hardship is more for the shifting of the residences. 6. The question with regard to the fixation of alignment, will have to be considered by the competent authority before finalising the alignment. Going by paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, the alignment submitted by the Consultancy was scrutinized technically and scientifically, by the Technical Committee of NHAI and was finalized after field inspection. It is not clear whether the points raised by the petitioners have been considered. 7. In that view of the matter there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the grievances raised by the petitioners in Ext.P5 and if necessary by consulting the Technical W.P.(C)No.30283 of 2009 3 Committee. A suitable reply will be given within six weeks in the matter. If the petitioners want to produce any additional materials the same will be forwarded along with a representation within 2 weeks. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj