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 TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5038 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. BABY JOSEPH, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, PATTARUMADATHIL, ARAKUZHA.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. BABY JOHN, S/O. JOHN, KOCHUPALIARTHIL, ARAKUZHA.P.O. 3. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, KUDIYIRIKKAL, ARAKKUZHA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF ERKALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES WINGS, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 495, ARAKKUZHA KARA, ARAKKUZHA VILLAGE, ARAKKUZHA.P.O, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. SRI. TOMY VALLAMATTOM, S/O. VARKEY, VALLAMATTATHIL, PANDAPPILLY KARA, ARAKKUZHA.P.O. WP(C) No.5038 of 2009 - 2 - 6. V.V. KURIAN, VALLAMATTOM HOUSE, PERUMBALLOOR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA. 7. THE ARAKKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, O/O. ARAKKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ARAKKUZHA.P.O. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH FOR R7 SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R5 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R5 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.5038 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: a) A writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P8 issued by the 2nd respondent and Exhibit P11 NOC granted by the 3rd respondent. b) A writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P12 permit dated 23/1/2009 issued by the Arakuzha Grama Panchayat. c) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to maintain the bus bay/taxi stand at the Arakuzha Junction, proper abutting the Thottakkara - Marika (Arakuzha Church Road) as per Exhibit P3 or retain the bus bay there and shift the taxi stand to the road margin in from the offices of respondents 4 and 7.” 2. The three petitioners who filed the instant writ petition claim that the writ petition is filed in public interest. 3. The factual dispute is as follows: The first respondent State and its officers took a decision to construct a twenty metres wide road by widening the existing Muvattupuha - WP.(C) No.5038 of 2009 - 2 - Pandappilly Road and for the said purpose they wanted to acquire some pieces of land on either side of the proposed road. Such a decision, it appears, was taken in the year 1999. The alignment and design of the proposed road was also prepared under Ext.P3. It appears from the materials before this Court in the instant writ petition that as per the original alignment prepared, the bus bay and taxi stand are required to be located in a particular point as indicated in the said design. 4. However, subsequent to the preparation of the abovementioned design, the 4th respondent society purchased a piece of property abutting the road where the bus bay and taxi stand mentioned above were required to be located as per the original plan of the road alignment. The 5th and 6th respondents are the members of the governing body of the 4th respondent society. Respondents 4 to 6 made a representation to the State that the property referred to above be exempted from acquisition for the purpose of widening of the road. The State considered the representation and thought it fit to exempt the acquisition of the property of the 4th respondent and in view of such a decision the alignment of the WP.(C) No.5038 of 2009 - 3 - road was slightly altered shifting the bus bay and taxi stand from the original location indicated in Ext.P3. 5. The various factors which weighed with the State for taking such a decision are stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent which reads as follows: “What the Arakuzha Grama Panchayat and the PWD authorities had done is, to shift the bus bay and taxi stand to a place which is much more convenient for the general public. This has been done after detailed scientific studies. Now the petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court saying that his proposal is better than the study conducted by the qualified Engineers of the department and that itself is sufficient to discard the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot seek any writ for substituting the ideas in place of ideas formulated by the qualified Engineers. There is a direction of this Hon'ble Court not to make any alteration in the already approved alignment and to maintain 20 mtrs. width throughout. Therefore departmental authority is not in a position to make any alteration in the alignment of the road. What the maximum can be done for minimizing traffic congestion and for making the use of road smooth is to shift the bus bay and taxi stand, parking place, etc. It is a common knowledge that if the taxi stand is on one side and the bus bay on the other side that too in a crowded junction will definitely defeat the purpose for which the road is being formed.” WP.(C) No.5038 of 2009 - 4 - 6. Challenging the said decision the instant writ petition is filed purporting to be one in public interest. Admittedly, the petitioners do not lose any property pursuant to the altered alignment of the road. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the alignment of the road could not have been changed at the instance of respondents 4 to 6. 7. We regret our inability to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The 4th respondent is a society and the property of the 4th respondent is used for the benefit of the members of the society as a class and not for the individual benefit of anyone of the members of the society. In such a case, on the basis of a representation made by the society and its members, if the State comes to the conclusion that the property of the society deserves to be exempted from the acquisition process, the State was essentially weighing the competing claims of public interest, one served by the activity of the 4th respondent society, and the other, the requirement of acquiring that particular piece of property for widening the road. In the process, the State comes to the conclusion that both the public WP.(C) No.5038 of 2009 - 5 - purposes can be subserved by exempting the property of the 4th respondent society from acquisition and shifting the alignment of the road slightly, a decision, according to our view, is totally within the jurisdiction of the State with which we see no reason to interfere. 8. In the background of the abovementioned fact we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition is a sheer abuse of the process of public interest litigation and the writ petition is therefore dismissed with costs quantified at Rupees three thousand to be paid to the Kerala Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today failing which the Secretary of the Kerala Legal Services Authority will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the abovementioned amount. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns