IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37542 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. ABDUL RAFEEQUE.M. AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLAH, MADARI HOUSE, MUKKATTA, NILAMBUR R.S. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SUHARABI.M. W/O. ASHRAF, POOTHAKKAL HOUSE, NILAMBUR R.S. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O. KOYA, KUMMLY HOUSE, IYYAR POIL, NILAMBUR R.S.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. P.T.MUHAMMED, PANAKKATHODIKA HOUSE, IYYAR POIL, NILAMBUR R.S.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 5. SAID MUHAMMED.V.T., VARITHODIKA HOUSE, IYYAR POIL NILAMBUR R.S. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 6. UMMAR.K.P. KARUTHA PALLATHU, IYYAR POIL, NILAMBUR R.S. P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. 7. P.SAINUDHEEN MUSALIYAR, PALAPPURAM, MUKKATTA, NILAMBUR R.S. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO' GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC NO.37542/09 -2- 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.)ROAD & BRIDGES) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. (ROADS & BRIDGES) MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37542 OF 2009 (K) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider Exts.P1 to P6 representations made by them seeking change of alignment of Nilambur Bypass Road for which land is proposed to be acquired. According to the petitioners, if the alignment proposed by them is accepted and implemented, that will be the shortest distance and will be without any curve or bent. In my view, these are matters which are essentially for the respondents to consider and as such, only after 4(1) notification is issued, can even an objection be entertained. At this stage, there is no legal obligation neither for the respondents to consider the representation nor is any legal right created in favour of persons like the petitioners to require the respondents to consider any representation made. I am not persuaded to grant the relief sought for. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp