Disposed

K.v.Samuel v. Indian Railway Represented by the General Manager

Kerala HC6 Jun 2019WP(C)/5590/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought direction for constructing a road accessing their residential building. After Human Rights Commission recommended the proposal, petitioners submitted a representation. Court directed the concerned Divisional Manager to finalize the representation within a month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent to finalize the representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law within one month.

K.v.Samuel Vs Indian Railway… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 5590 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 K.V.SAMUEL, AGED 75 YEARS, KALLODIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, M.T.COLLEGE ROAD, KUTTAPUZHA RAILWAY STATION P.O.., THIRUVALLA,PIN-689 111

¶8

2 M.J.THOMAS, AGED 76 YEARS, MADAVANA HOUSE,KUTTAPUZHA RAILWAY STATION P.O.., THIRUVALLA,PIN-689 111

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) SRI.JACOB THOMAS (VANCHIPALAM)

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 INDIAN RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, N.G.O. MAIN BUILDINGS, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-600003

¶13

2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER (WORKS), SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶14

3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 035

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 5590 of 2019 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioners are residents of Ward No.9 of Thiruvalla Municipality. According to the petitioners, seeking direction for constructing a three meter road to access the residential building of the petitioners as well as others, by the railways, petitioners have approached Human Rights Commission and have secured Ext.P1 order, whereby, a recommendation was made in accordance with the proposal of constructing a three meter road.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioners is that, in spite of earnest efforts of petitioners, the recommendation is not considered. Thereupon, petitioners have submitted Exts.P5 and P6 before the 1^st and 2^nd respondents. The sole relief sought for is direction for early consideration of the same.

¶21

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondents stating that, already there is a three meter road existing. But, it is disputed by the petitioners stating that, the road already existing is not having sufficient width as is said in the counter affidavit.

¶22

In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that a direction is issued to the 2^nd

¶23

WP(C).No. 5590 of 2019 3

¶24

respondent to finalize Ext.P6 in accordance with law.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to finalize Ext.P6 in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing a notice of hearing to the petitioners and any other interested persons.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

uu 06.06.2019

WP(C).No. 5590 of 2019 4

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT	P1 THE TRUE COPY OF 17.9.2014 IN HRM STATE HUMAN RIGH	THE ORDER DATES P NO.5176/2014 BY THE TS COMMISSION
EXHIBIT	P2 THE ROUGH SKETCH RAILWAY SAFETY R	SHOWING THE PROPOSED OAD
EXHIBIT	P3 THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 20/7/17 FI CENTRAL MINISTER	THE REPRESENTATION LED BEFORE THE HON'BLE FOR RAILWAYS
EXHIBIT	P4 THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 20.7.2017 HON'BLE CENTRAL	THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS
EXHIBIT	P5 THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 12.4.2018 RESPONDENT	THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST
EXHIBIT	P6 THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 12.4.2018 RESPONDENT	THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND

K.v.Samuel v. Indian Railway Represented by the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Samuel v. Indian Railway Represented by the General Manager

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

Dr.P.P.Bhaskaran, Vs Kerala State Legal Service Authority

Sovin George Vs v.Sreejith

M/S.Lurdh Matha Constructions, Vs Superintendng Engineer

Unaise Vs State of Kerala

Babu George, Vs State of Kerala

Sujith N.G. Vs Gugulloth Lakshman, IPS