IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8289 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.M. FRANCIS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, KANNABATHOOR, CHENGALLOOR P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SAJI, SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 2. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CORPORATE OFFICE, G5 & 6 SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-75. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NHAI, ARUMUGHAN COLONY, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ROADS & BRIDGES), KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, TRICHUR. R1 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P. NARAYANAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 8289 of 2010 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who is the President of Pudukkad Grama Panchayat, has approached this Court, seeking a direction to consider Ext.P4 representation and Ext.P5 plan submitted by him and to make necessary changes in the spot for construction of underpass at Pudukkad junction, by shifting it to 270 metres North - West towards Thrissur direction. He also seeks a direction to respondents 2 and 3 not to construct an over bridge raising the existing level of the National Highway instead of an underpass at Pudukkad as undertaken in Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C) No.10222/2009. 2. As far as the second prayer is concerned, it is true that Ext.P2 judgment shows that pursuant to the directions in that case, a technical committee was appointed and the committee submitted its report recommending the construction of an underpass at Pudukkad instead of an over W.P.(C) No.8289/2010 : 2 : bridge. 3. Counter affidavit filed by the third respondent shows that they have not departed from their undertaking and they are proceeding with the proposal for construction of an underpass at Pudukkad as undertaken in Ext.P2. The affidavit shows that based on the study conducted by a technical committee, it has been decided that the proposed underpass at Pudukkad will be of a fly over type, ie., the National Highway will pass overhead the existing Highway. Thus, it is obvious that the respondents do not propose to construct any over bridge as apprehended by the petitioner. 4. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner to consider Exts.P4 and P5 are concerned, the main request of the petitioner is to shift the location identified for the underpass. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, in so far as the shifting as sought for by the petitioner is concerned, the third respondent has stated thus:- “ The Technical Committee had inspected site at sought and north including W.P.(C) No.8289/2010 : 3 : site at Ch.280/370 of the site proposed for Underpass now by the petitioner. At Ch.280/370 there is only one pocket road, having 3 metre width on the western side (Right Hand Side) and there is no side road joining the NH on the Left Hand Side. If the proposed Underpass is shifted to this site a new pocket road at LHS will have to be formed after acquiring land and evicting the residents and commercial establishments. More over a 6m deep Underpass at this site is not possible because of the rain water collecting in the Underpass without drainage. An Underpass at Pudukkad town is possible only by an elevated highway. Entry to KSRTC road is easy from service roads on either side.” 5. Thus, it is obvious that the request of the petitioner has already been considered and is found to be impractical. Therefore, no useful purpose is served by considering Exts.P4 and P5. Apart from this, it has to be stated that the manner in which the underpass or a National Highway is to be W.P.(C) No.8289/2010 : 4 : constructed, or where the same are to be made are all matters for the experts of the National Highway to decide and this Court, which lacks any expertise in this field, will not be justified in upsetting any such decision, especially when it is not proved to be vitiated by any arbitrariness or malafides. 6. I see no reason to interfere with the matter. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge