IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 102 of 2010(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- K.N.VIJAYAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, MANAGING PARTNER, SIVAGANGA ASSOCIATES, KULATHERI BUILDINGS, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), ALUVA. ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.12/01/2010 IN I.A.No.418/'10 ADDL.R3:- SRI.R.V.BABU, GENERAL SECRETARY, HINDU AIKYAVEDHI, JENMA BHOOMI DAILY, ELAMAKKARA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN SRI.V.M.KURIAN STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR FOR ADDL.R3 SMT.K.L.SREEKALA FOR ADDL.R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.102 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18h day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has executed an agreement with the first respondent municipality on 6/2/2009 for constructing temporary bridge from Kottarakadavu to Manappuram over Periyar River in connection with the Mahasivarathri Festival of 2009. As per the terms of the agreement he has to construct the temporary foot bridge during the Sivarathri festival season for three years namely 2009, 2010 and 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that he had invested huge amount and incurred cost towards the cost of material, labour charges and other items etc. in the previous years. The total length of the bridge is 184 meters and width provided is 20 feet. 2. The petitioner has to maintain temporary bridge during the festival season. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the additional 3rd respondent will obstruct the construction and collection of toll and unless positive steps are taken by the 1st and 2nd respondents, the petitioner will not be able to proceed with the construction. Without collecting the toll fixed as per the W.P.(C)No.102 of 2010 2 agreement he will not be able to meet the expenses. Therefore the main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to provide adequate arrangements for collecting toll as agreed in Ext.P1. There is a further prayer for direction to the first respondent to relieve the petitioner from proceeding with the execution of Ext.P1 due to the proposed agitation as disclosed from Exts.P2, P3 and P6. 3. The first respondent as well as the additional 3rd respondent have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality it is pointed out that a temporary foot bridge was provided during the last year by the petitioner from Kottarakadavu to the Manalppuram on BOT basis as per Ext.P1 agreement. The petitioner is entitled to collect the prescribed fee from the users and the Municipality is not a beneficiary of the fee collected. It is pointed out that the last year one B.V.Ravindran filed W.P.(C)No.5250 of 2009 before this Court stating that Aluva Sivarathri Maholsavam and Bali Tharppanam are totally religious functions of the Hindu belief and the pilgrims who come to attend the Bali Tharppanam in W.P.(C)No.102 of 2010 3 connection with Aluva Sivarathri Maholsavam shall be allowed to cross the temporary bridge free of charge. After hearing, this court passed an interim order dated 20/2/2009 directing the District Collector to call the parties including the contractor and explore the possibility of reducing the rate. After discussion with the parties concerned, Rs.5/- (one way) fixed as fee for crossing the bridge was retained and no variation was made. With regard to the averments in paragraphs 4 to 6, it is submitted that to the best of the information of this respondent, nobody has obstructed or raised objection to the construction of the bridge. The petitioner is entitled to collect fee at the rate of Rs.5/- (one way) for crossing the bridge and it is not proper for any social organization including the Hindu Aikya Munnani to obstrct or raise objection. Objection or obstruction, if any will not be in public interest. The Municipality is not in a position to build and operate temporary foot bridge. No other social organizations have offered to provide similar facilities. 4. The stand taken by the additional 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit is that their objection is against the W.P.(C)No.102 of 2010 4 collection of toll and the 1st respondent was approached to do away with such collection. It is the case of the additional 3rd respondent they have filed Ext.R3(c) before the Municipality for providing more facilities to the pilgrims and to provide free access to the temple for all pilgrims who are passing through the bridge. 5. In the light of the contentions raised, the only question is whether the petitioner should be given the facility for constructing the bridge in terms of the contract i.e. the agreement already entered into. Public interest demands construction of the bridge within the time stipulated. Other disputes relating to the rate etc. will have to be adjudicated by appropriate authorities in the matter especially in the light of Ext.R1(c) order. The 3rd respondent or any body else cannot obstruct the construction of the bridge or the facility proposed to be provided by the Municipality in this regard including the temporary bridge. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent that they have not obstructed the construction of the bridge. Therefore the apprehension raised W.P.(C)No.102 of 2010 5 by the petitioner of any obstruction is not correct. It is only appropriate that District Collector and the second respondent take appropriate measures by convening a conference of all parties including the respondents herein within 7 days from the production of a copy of this judgment to have an amicable settlement of all issues and for a smooth conduct of the festival and there will be a direction to that effect. The petitioner cannot avoid the work of construction of the temporary bridge. The same will be commenced without any delay and the second respondent will render necessary help if required so, by the petitioner or the Municipality. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj