Disposed

M. Jasmine, v. the Union of India

Kerala HC2 Jul 2020WP(C)/35737/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Railway Over Bridge alignment threatening displacement. The court, noting a positive response by Railways to modify the skew angle, ordered the respondent engineer to afford a hearing before finalising the plan and submit findings within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed 7th respondent to afford hearing to petitioners before finalising plan and submit findings to Railway Administration within one month.

M. Jasmine, Vs the Union of India — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.35737 OF 2019(N)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 M. JASMINE, AGED 39 YEARS W/O HASHIM P.M, MUKKIL VEEDU, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 301.

¶8

2 ASHRAF E, AGED 59 YEARS S/O LATE EBRAHIMKUNJU, SANA BANGLAVIL, ALUMMOODU, KANIYAPURAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 301.

¶9

3 SALIM K, AGED 50 YEARS

¶10

S/O LATE KASSIMKANNU, ALUMMOODU, KANIYAPURAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 301.

¶11

4 M. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 63 YEARS S/O LATE MUSTHAFA, VALIYA MANAKKAD VEEDU, PERUNGUZHI POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 305.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI-PIN CODE-110001.

¶15

W.P.(C) No.35737 of 2019

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

3 ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 11ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.

¶19

4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD, 11ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.

¶20

5 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BRIDGES), PUBLIC OFFICES COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶21

6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶22

7 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, EASTERN ENTRY BLOCK, ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD. PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.

¶23

R3 BY ADV. SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA

¶24

OTHER PRESENT:

¶25

ASG P.VIJAYAKUMAR; GP RASHMI K.M.; SC FOR RAILWAYS A.DINESH RAO; ADV.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R4

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶27

ON 02.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

W.P.(C) No.35737 of 2019

¶29

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2020.

¶32

Petitioners are residing in close proximity to the Kaniyapuram Railway Level Cross (LC No.573) and are aggrieved by the alignment fixed for the Railway Over Bridge (ROB) proposed to be constructed over the level cross. According to the petitioners, if the ROB is constructed as per the

¶33

alignment presently fixed, it will lead to displacement of numerous families, including that of the petitioners. Petitioners allege that the present alignment is the result of an unscientific deviation made, to save the properties of certain bigwigs. Petitioners contend that the skew angle of the curved deviation should be 33 degrees instead of the 22 degrees presently provided. Petitioners had highlighted their grievances before the authorities by filing appropriate representations and had approached this Court when

¶34

W.P.(C) No.35737 of 2019

¶35

¶36

the representations were left unattended.

¶37

2. The task of constructing the ROB has been entrusted with the third respondent. While this writ petition was pending, the third respondent had taken up the petitioners' grievance before the 7^th respondent, the result of which has been communicated to the Government under Ext.P31. The relevant portion of Ext.P31 reads as under:-

¶38

“Later vide letter No.W.352/1/CN/ERS/ LC.566 Chirayinkeezh dated 11.12.2019, Chief Engineer, Construction, Southern Railway had informed that Railways envisages to provide 3 span configuration (12+24+12m) so as to accommodate future lines with platform accessibility according to schedule of dimensions. Accordingly revised GAD is being prepared with angle of crossing 33 degree and alignment will be finalised if such GAD is approval by the Railways.”

¶39

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶40

submits that Ext.P31 reflects a positive response to their grievance and therefore, for the present, the petitioners would be satisfied if they are

¶41

afforded an opportunity of hearing before finalisation of the plan for the ROB.

¶42

W.P.(C) No.35737 of 2019

¶43

¶44

4. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Railways, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader.

¶45

In view of the limited relief sought, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, without entering into the merits of the rival contentions. The writ petition is hence disposed of, directing the 7^th respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, prior to finalisation of the proposal under consideration, as reflected from Ext.P31, and to forward the findings arrived at based on such hearing to the appropriate authority in the Railway Administration. The process as directed above shall be completed within an outer limit of

¶46

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶48

Scl/03.07.2020

¶49

W.P.(C) No.35737 of 2019

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE AN PANCHAYATH 22.12 PETITIONER	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DOORKONAM GRAMA .2018 TO0 THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 4.4.2018 I PETITIONER	BASIC TAX RECEIPT SSUED TO THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE FOR THE BUILDING 18.6.2018 ISSUED	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT NO 142/11 DATED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE FOR THE BUILDING 18.6.2018	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT NO 139/11 DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE FOR THE BUILDING 18.6.2018	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT NO 140/11 DATED
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE FOR THE BUILDING 18.6.2018	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT NO 141/11 DATED
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED IN FAVOUR	BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 1.10.2016 3RD PETITIONER	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 26.7.2018 PETITIONER	BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAOVUR OF 4TH
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT

¶54

W.P.(C) No.35737 of 2019

¶55

¶56

DTED 5.12.2017

¶57

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.3.08 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETHC PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.12.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.1.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.1.2019 IN WPC NO 1469/2019 EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT PLAN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 29.3.2019 EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.3.2019 ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶58

W.P.(C) No.35737 of 2019

¶59

¶60

EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS TOGETHER WITH A TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS WITH THE HELP OF AN EXPERIENCED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY GO(RT) 889/2019/PWD DATED 17.7.2019 EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.7.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 1059/2019 PWD DATED 27.8.1929. EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.3.2019 TOGETHER WITH REPLY DATED 15.5.2019 EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE RAILWAY STANDARDS ISSUED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P26 EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.5.2019 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER, UNDER RTI ACT, 2005 TOGETHER WITH REPLY DATED 14.8.2019

¶61

EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.12.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY MR. SUJITH DAVID JOHN, STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.01.2020.

M. Jasmine, v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Jasmine, v. the 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

Jyothishkumar S Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Sasikumar Vs the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, Rep. by Its Administrator

Kerala Table Tennis Association (Affiliated to the Kerala State Sports Council) Vs Kerala State Sports Council

Ananthu.S.Anup Vs the District Collector Kollam

Nimitha Vs Canara Bank

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co.Ltd Vs the State of Kerala