IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26941 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.KAMALAKSHAN, S/O. P.P.GOVINDAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, VALIYANNUR AMSOM, VARANAM DESOM, P.O.VARAM, KANNUR (PRESIDENT, KANDANKODE TO MUNDAYAD BY-PASS ACTION COMMITTEE). 2. M.P.SUDHARMAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, SINI NIVAS, VALIYANNUR AMSOM, VARAM DESOM, P.O. VARAM, KANNUR (SECRETARY, KANDANKODE TO MUNDAYAD BY-PASS ACTION COMMITTEE). 3. B.P.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.POKKEN, SUKANYALAYAM, VALIYANNUR AMSOM, VARAM DESOM, P.O.VARAM, KANNUR (VICE PRESIDENT, KANDANKODE TO MUNDAYAD BY-PASS ACTION COMMITTEE). 4. P.SREESHAN, S/O.ANANDAN, PUTHUKUDI HOUSE, VALIYANNUR AMSOM, VARAM DESOM, P.O.VARAM, KANNUR (TREASURER, KANDANKODE TO MUNDAYAD BY-PASS ACTION COMMITTEE). BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G-586 SECTON 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGH WAYS, NEW DELHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. R1, R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASG R3, R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.26941 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners request that the National Highway Authority may be directed to consider the suggestions made in Ext.P4, the very same suggestions which were subject matter of W.P(C).23708/09, in which, directions have been issued taking the situation as a extra ordinary one. Duplication of directions and duplication of writ petitions by merely changing the petitioners do not improve any matter. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that nothing has been done following the earlier direction, in my view, does not provide the cause of action for yet another writ petition, merely by substituting the petitioners from the former. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without entering on merits. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.25/9.