IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35455 of 2009(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- GEORGE JOSEPH,KOYICKAL HOUSE, CHERPUNKAL,PULIYANOOR,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- * 1. SRI.P.JOSEPH,MINISTER,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - D E L E T E D * 2. SRI.MONS JOSEPH,MLA,KADUTHURITHY.- D E L E T E D *RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DTD. 9/12/2009 IN WP(C). 3. THE VICAR,MAR SLEEBA CHURCH, CHERPUMKAL. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,PWD,R & B DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD, R& B DIVISION,KOTTAYAM. **ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED: R7. MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, ARAMPULICKAL HOUSE, CHERPUNKAL P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 8/01/10 IN I.A.324/2010) R3 BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE R4 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU R7 BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35455/2009 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1026 DTD. 20/09/2001 OF SRO KIDANGOOR. P2: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE ROAD, BRIDGE, PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND THE CHURCH. P3: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 4/7/1978 BETWEEN THE VICAR OF THE CHURCHAND FATHER OF THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/09/2003. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/09/2003 BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DTD. 30/12/2003. P7: COPY FO THE JUDGMENT DTD. 8/12/2006 IN WP(C) NO.27805/2003. P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 20/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S ADVOCATE. P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/07/2009 SENT BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER'S ADVOCATE. P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 16/11/2009 IN WP(C) NO.32763/2009. P11: COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION DTD. 14/07/2009 WITH THE LIST OF BRIDGES. P12: COPY OF THE FIELD MAP OF THE AREA. P13: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF THE PURAMBOKE LAND. P14: COPY OF THE BTR OF CHERPUMKAL CHURCH. P15: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 24/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, PALA. P16: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 9/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35455 of 2009 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Across the Meenachil river and parallel to the existing Cherpunkal bridge on the Cherpunkal – Kozhuvanal road, a new bridge is proposed to be constructed. Exts.P4, P5, P6, P9 and P11 show that the proposal was to construct the new bridge to the west of the existing bridge. Case of the petitioner is that if the bridge is to be so constructed, there would not have been any necessity to acquire any additional land as the bridge could have been connected both sides of the river to properties which are puramboke lands. It is stated that, as against the said proposal, on the influence of the third respondent, the proposal was modified and it was proposed to construct the new bridge to the east of the existing bridge. It is stated that if that proposal materialises, that will necessitate acquisition of a portion of the petitioner's property and it is in that background, the writ petition has been filed. In this writ W.P.(C) No.35455/2009 : 2 : petition, the main relief sought for is that the respondents should construct the bridge only through the alignment as proposed and as seen in Exts.P4 to P6, P9 and P11. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the official respondents. It is stated in the affidavit that the initial proposal was to construct the parallel bridge through the western side of the existing bridge, but later, on detailed study of geometrics of the bridge and the approach roads and taking note of the petitions received from the public, the Chief Engineer (Roads and Bridges) inspected the site on 08-02- 2010. It is stated that on such inspection and taking note of the relevant aspects, it was decided to construct the proposed bridge on the eastern side of the existing bridge. It is stated that as per this proposal, the property belonging to the Church and of the petitioner will have to be acquired. It is stated that if the new proposal is implemented, a curve in the alignment of the approach road can also be straightened. 3. As already stated, the main relief that the petitioner W.P.(C) No.35455/2009 : 3 : seeks is a direction that the respondents should construct the bridge on the western side of the existing bridge, as originally proposed. As far as this prayer is concerned, it should first be stated that the question whether the bridge is to be located on the west of the existing bridge or on the east of the existing bridge is a matter for the respondents to decide considering the convenience that will be caused to the general public and the other relevant aspects. In such a case, only if the aggrieved person is able to satisfy this Court that the decision to locate the bridge or to relocate the bridge is vitiated by arbitrariness or malafides, any such decision of the authoriites will be out of bounds for this Court to exercise its powers of judicial review. 4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alignment of the bridge was shifted from the west of the existing bridge to the east of the existing bridge yielding to the influence exerted by the third respondent. Pleadings in the writ petition show that if the W.P.(C) No.35455/2009 : 4 : bridge was constructed on the western side as originally proposed, it would not have been necessary to acquire the property of the Church or the petitioner. On the other hand, if the alignment of the bridge is shifted to the east of the existing bridge, acquisition of the properties of the petitioner and the Church will be necessitated. Therefore, it is improbable and unnatural to think that the Church authorities would have exerted influence to shift the location of the bridge to a place which necessitates acquisition of their own property. Therefore, I am not persuaded to think that on the materials available, case of the petitioner that the alignment of the bridge was shifted yielding to the influence exercised by the Church authorities is correct and that contention of the petitioner is to be rejected and I do so. 5. In addition to this, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the sixth respondent shows that if the location of the bridge is shifted to the east of the existing bridge, that will also help the authorities to straighten the curve on the alignment of W.P.(C) No.35455/2009 : 5 : the approach road to the bridge. That apart, it is also seen that such a decision to shift the alignment was taken after the Chief Engineer (Roads and Bridges) inspected the site on 08- 02-2010. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make out a case of either arbitrariness or malafides on the part of the authorities in taking the decision to shift the location of the bridge to the east of the existing bridge. In my view, there is no case for this Court to interfere with the decision of the authorities. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge