IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16097 of 2010(S) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- KHALID MUNDAPPILLY, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED, SOCIAL & HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST, EDAYAPURAM, ALUVA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER NS 2, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA G-5 & 6, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110 075. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA, THUSHARA BINDU, NO.337, CHANDRA NAGAR-EXTENSION, NARIKKODU, PALAKKADU-678 007. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD., PERAMBRA P.O., BEHIND APPOLO TYRES, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.THOMAS ANTONY R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOODIRI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16097 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The instant public interest litigation is filed with the prayers as follows: “i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to conduct a confidence inspiring and threadbare investigation into the corruption in the construction of Aluva fly over and consequent loss to the exchequer and to prosecute the culprits. ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to desist from imposing toll to stretch from Angamaly to Edapilly. iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to complete the construction work of Aluva Fly over within a time bound manner.” 2. The basic facts in the case are that a contract was awarded in favour of a company known as Guruvayoor Infrastructure Private Limited of which the 5th respondent is the W.P.(C) No.16097 of 2010 - 2 - Managing Director, by the second respondent on 27.3.2006 for “design, engineering, financing, procurement, construction, operation and maintenance” of a particular work which includes construction of a fly-over. Admittedly, the construction of the fly-over is not yet complete. It appears from Ext.P3 dated 1st January, 2008, the information furnished by the National Highways Authority of India in response to Ext.P2 application filed by the present petitioner, that the abovementioned work was proposed to be completed by March, 2009. There is no material on record as to what is the tenure of the contract and what is the time stipulation for completion of the work covered by the contract. By Ext.P2, the present petitioner sought various pieces of information from the Public Information Officer of the National Highways Authority of India and by Ext.P3 the information sought for by the petitioner is furnished. 3. On the basis of the said information, the present writ petition came to be filed seeking the various reliefs already W.P.(C) No.16097 of 2010 - 3 - noted above. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of Ext.P3 is extracted which reads as follows: “With reference to your letter dated 13.12.07, the parawise information is furnished as below: (1) The construction of flyover at Aluva is part of the project of four-laning of Thrissur (Km 270) to Angamali (Km 316/700) section of NH47 and proposed to be completed by March 2009. (2) The cost of the project is Rs.312.50 crores (which includes four-laning from Thrissur (Km 270) to Angamali (Km 316/700) and improvements from Angamali (Km 316/700) to Edapally (Km 342) section of NH47). Aluva flyover is part of the project. Toll will be collected for the entire stretch from Thrissur to Edapally. Toll plaza is at the end of Thrissur bypass. Toll rate will be Rs.40ps./Km for passenger car for one-way trip (rate as per base year 1997). The address of the construction company is M/s. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Private Limited, Perambra PO, Behind Apollo Tyres, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District-680 689. Phone/Fax:0480- 2721575. W.P.(C) No.16097 of 2010 - 4 - (3) In this project, four-laning from Thrissur to Angamali and improvements from Angamali to Edapally will be taken up. The project consisting of six flyovers, two underpasses and widening of two major bridges. (4) After construction of flyover, traffic coming from Aluva Town and bus station and crossing the highway leading to Thrissur need not wait for the signal. Traffic will cross the highway underneath the flyover and ply towards Thrissur without waiting for the traffic signal.” 4. The pleadings in the present writ petition are absolutely vague with reference to the first relief sought i.e. in the context of “threadbare investigation into the corruption”. Not a single statement specifically highlighting the allegation of corruption can be found in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner confronted with the above situation pointed out a statement in paragraph 3 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that the incumbent of the office of the 4th respondent was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting illegal W.P.(C) No.16097 of 2010 - 5 - gratification of Rs.90,000/- and a criminal case in that regard is pending. The relevant portion of the pleadings reads as follows: “It is worthwhile to note that the undersignee in Ext.P-3 namely B.Venugopal is a most corrupted officer of N.H.A.I., who was caught red handed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.90,000/-. During the course of investigation of the trap, information collected pertaining to certain other grave criminal misconduct of the accused and the same were investigated and charge was framed under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 420, 468, 471.” 5. It can be seen from the above extracted portion of the pleadings that no details as to the said criminal case are available. It is not known whether the said criminal case is filed either in connection with the work which is the subject matter of the instant public interest litigation or some other activity of the abovementioned B.Venugopal. 6. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is some investigation pending against Mr.B.Venugopal in W.P.(C) No.16097 of 2010 - 6 - connection with some other transaction, that need not necessarily lead to the conclusion that all acts of discharge of duty by the abovementioned B.Venugopal are tainted. At any rate, it cannot be presumed. It requires a definite pleading in that regard. Apart from that, there is no other pleading worthwhile which establishes the right of the petitioner for the first relief sought in the writ petition. 7. Coming to the second relief sought in the writ petition, there is absolutely no averment which can form the legal basis for granting such a relief in the entire body of the writ petition. Except for arguing that the respondents should desist from imposing toll, the petitioner does not lay any factual foundation to demonstrate that collection of such a toll would be impermissible or illegal under the laws of this land. 8. Coming to the third relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner once again seeks a relief which is essentially in the realm of the contract where a third-party to the W.P.(C) No.16097 of 2010 - 7 - contract normally has no right to seek any relief. We have no doubt that citizens do have a right to seek timely completion of public works in an appropriate case. But in view of the nature of the pleadings and the inappropriateness of the first two prayers in the context of the pleadings in the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition is a mere abuse of the process of this Court. Therefore, we are not even inclined to consider the third relief sought for by the petitioner. 9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage, in the circumstances, with costs quantified at Rupees two thousand to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns