IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29974 of 2008(R) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SANTHI NAGAR RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION, CANTONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM 691001, REG NO.206/2002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.BABURAJAN.C. BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS DIVISION), KOLLAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION), BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, KOLLAM. 3. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN, SC, BSNL R3 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29974 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Association registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, with the primary objective of looking after the welfare of the residents in the Cantonment North Ward of Kollam Corporation. 2. The petitioner's grievance arises from the widening of a narrow drainage canal that passes through a low lying area of the Ward. Apparently, the widening of the canal is not objected to by the petitioner. In fact, they welcome this. But the grievance arises because the contractor, who has been entrusted with the work, allegedly is not taking sufficient care while concreting the side walls on the drainage inasmuch as there are certain cables which cross the canal and the said cables are not being removed at the time of concreting. The grievance has been highlighted by the petitioner in Ext.P2 representation before the Executive Engineer. W.P.(C).NO.29974/08 :: 2 :: 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the BSNL. In the circumstances, The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to look into Ext.P2 and do the needful. This shall be done without delay and at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a a copy of this judgment. There shall also be a direction to the 2nd respondent to look into the complaint and see that the contractor engaged deploys necessary crew to see that there is no flooding brought about while concreting, in the course of widening of the canal, as alleged by the petitioner. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge