Disposed

Hasna v. the General Manager

Kerala HC8 Jul 2010WP(C)/4943/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the alignment of an approach road to a new bridge, alleging it would cause demolition and cost more. The Court directed the Government to consider the petitioners' representation within two months after hearing them.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Government to consider the petitioners' representation (Ext.P3) in accordance with law by hearing them within two months of receipt of the copy of this Judgment.

Hasna Vs the General Manager — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 4943 of 2010(P)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶8

HASNA, AGED 58 YEARS,W/O. MAHAMMOOD, 'HASNAS',P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD, NEAR MOIDU BRIDGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

JASIR AHAMMED.M.C., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MHAMMOOD, 'HASNAS',P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD, NEAR MOIDU BRIDGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

SABITHA.K.P. AGED 37 YEAR, W/O. AHAMMED, 'HASNAS',P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD, NEAR MOIDU BRIDGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER,(NATIONAL HIGHWAY), PWD OFFICE, PUBLIC OFFICE OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

SHRI THOMAS ANTONY

¶19

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶22

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶23

W.P.(C). No.4943/2010-P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2010

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioners are aggrieved by the fixation of

¶26

alignment of the approach road to the proposed new bridge at KN 172/100/NH17 across Dharmadam river in the place of the existing bridge.

¶27

It is pointed out that the proposal was to

¶28

realign the approach road therein, to vacant puramboke land in the possession of the PWD thereby reducing the large scale demolition of residential as well as other buildings and destruction of standing crops. The petitioners are the owners and in possession of three items of properties having an extent of 35.25 cents in Re-survey No.214/7A of Mylappilangad Village of Thalasseri Taluk of Kannur District. They have constructed two Shopping Complexes and a two storied residential building in the said properties which are lying by the side of the National Highway No.17 on its Western side. It is pointed out that the entire savings have been spent for the above construction.

¶29

W.P.(C). No.4943/2010

¶30

-:2:-

¶31

There is an existing steel bridge across Dharmadam river. The proposal is to construct a new bridge in the place of the existing steel bridge. According to the petitioners, the proposal to lay a new approach road through the Western road margin is highly expensive and will result in large scale destruction of buildings and other crops. It is pointed out that the entire cost of construction by way of acquisition can be saved if the approach road is laid through the Eastern road margin retaining the existing road as there is sufficient land available with the P.W.D. According to the averments in paragraph (4) of the writ petition, more than 50 feet of land is available there.

¶32

Ext.P3 is a detail representation submitted by the petitioners before the Government. Ext.P4 shows that the same has been forwarded by registered post. Seeking for appropriate direction to consider Ext.P3 this writ petition has been filed. Exts.P1 and P2 are the plans produced by the petitioners along with Ext.P3.

¶33

There will be a direction to the Government to consider Ext.P3 in accordance with law after hearing

¶34

W.P.(C). No.4943/2010

¶35

petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and the reply will be communicated to the petitioners.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No

¶37

costs.

¶38

Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶39

¶40

\TRUE COPY//

¶41

P.A TO JUDGE

Hasna v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasna v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose Vs State of Kerala

V.M.Thankachan Vs Bharanicavu Grama Panchayat

M.P. Basheer Vs Administrator, Union Territory

Vipin Raj R. Vs University of Kerala & Others

N.J.Mathew Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Treesa Antony Vs Thrissur Corporation