Disposed

Louin M.O v. Union of India

Kerala HC4 Apr 2018WP(C)/1180/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam recorded the arguments in a writ petition regarding highway alignment. The court directed the first respondent to consider a representation filed by the petitioner within three months and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider a representation filed by the petitioner and pass a final order within three months, after providing notice of hearing.

Louin M.O Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1180 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

LOUIN M.O., THEKKE MATTEL, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 501.

¶8

BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.SABU PULLAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NORTH PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NORTH PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶12

3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (P7 SECTION), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶13

4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PHASE - IV, ROOM NO. 342, THIRD FLOOR, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAY OF SHIPPING, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NORTH PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶14

5. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.C.NO.20/1539/1, RAJASREE KARATTE LANE, PERUMTHANNI, VALLAKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008.

¶15

6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

..2/-

¶17

..2..

¶18

WP(C).No. 1180 of 2018

¶19

7. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶20

8. SOLOMON, RETIRED ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ST:PAUL'S MOUNT, ELAMPALLOOR, KUNDARA, KOLLAM - 691 501.

¶21

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ADV. SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR, C.G.C. R5 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY R6 & R7 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED ANZAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Msd.

¶24

06.04.2018

¶25

WP(C).No. 1180 of 2018 (V)

¶26

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSU DATED 12.10.2000.	RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE	LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 7TH DIRECTOR, NTPRC DATED 12.02.2001.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 6TH 25.08.2003.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE	LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 7TH 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 07.04.2005.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE	LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 6TH FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 05.09.2009.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RECORDED IN THE N	RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MINUTES OTE FILE DATED 07.12.2009.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE	LETTER WRITTEN BY THE FIRST 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2009.
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE	LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 6TH FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26.08.2010.
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY PUBLISHED IN THE	RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LIST OF IN INDIA BY HIGHWAY NUMBER WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 07.04.2017	NOTIFICATION NO. S.O.1126(E) ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER ALONG 29.12.017.	REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE WITH OTHER INHABITANTS DATED
RESPOND	ENT(S)'	EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

06.04.2018

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 1180 OF 2018

¶36

Dated this the 04^th day of April, 2018

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking

¶39

the following reliefs:-

¶40

“i) To issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P10 notification No.S.O.1126(E) published by the first respondent on 07.04.2017 as the proposed deviation is against the eligibility requirement for new National Highway;

¶41

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to respondents 1 and 6 to implement Ext.P1 proposal for constructing the N.H. 220 (now re-numbered as 183) from Kollam - Kottarakkara - Kottayam - Theni;

¶42

iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the first respondent to see that any deviation in the alignment made in Ext.P1 shall be allowed only if the deviation satisfies the eligibility requirements for new National Highways;

¶43

iv) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 representation dated 29.12.2017 as

¶44

W.P.(C). No. 1180 OF 2018

¶45

¶46

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a time limit that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶47

v) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

¶48

2. Apparently, the issue raised by the petitioner in

¶49

this writ petition is in respect of Ext.P10 notification issued by the first respondent fixing an alignment of National Highway 220, now re-numbered as NH 183. Even though various contentions are raised with respect to illegality in Ext.P10, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a properly constituted representation will be submitted before the first respondent, if a reasonable time is provided and which may be directed to be considered, in accordance with law.

¶50

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government Counsel and learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, if the petitioner makes

¶51

W.P.(C). No. 1180 OF 2018 3

¶52

any representation before the first respondent, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the first respondent, in accordance with law, and attain finality, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation, after providing notice of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested persons.

¶53

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

DCS

Louin M.O v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Louin M.O v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johny Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Anil Sooraj Vs Government of Kerala

Joseph Antony Anil Vs Registrar of Companies(Kerala)

Agi George Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

M/Snavin Constructions Corporation Vs Shinamol

Lijey B.K. Vs Superintendent, Kozhikode Medical College Hospital