Disposed

Pradeep K., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Sept 2021WP(C)/13721/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL challenged the construction and supervision of the Chirakkapadi-Kanhirapuzha road project, alleging encroachments, wastage of funds, and traffic distress. The court found no serious irregularities, noted 71% progress, and directed completion without further specific directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to complete the project without any further delay; no further directions granted.

Pradeep K., Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 13721 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

PRADEEP K., AGED 44 YEARS S/O. VASUDEVAN, KANHIRATHINGAL HOUSE, POTTASSERY P.O. KALLAMALA MANARKKAD, PALAKKAD 678 598. BY ADVS. SANIN V.U. JACKSON JOHNY MUHAMMED YASIL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶13

2 KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT BOARD (KIIFB), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 3RD FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, T. C4/1654, MAYOORAM, BELHAVEN GARDEN, KOWDIAR, P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.

¶15

4 CHIEF ENGINEER, (PWD BRIDGE AND ROADS DIVISION), PUBLIC OFFICE, MUSEUM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶16

5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD 678 013.

¶17

6 M/S. R.S. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO. 131/1 A.P.T. ROAD, ERODE, TAMIL NADU 638 003.

¶18

7 ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD ROADS, PWD ROADS DIVISION, MANNARKADU, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 13721/2021 : 2 :

¶20

BY ADVS. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR R2 BY SRI. ARUN V.G., STANDING COUNSEL

¶21

R1, R4,R5 AND R7 BY SRI.TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 13721/2021

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2021.

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

S. MANIKUMAR,CJ.

¶28

Instant Public Interest Litigation is filed seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the Project Director, Project Management Unit, Kerala Road Fund Board, Thiruvananthapuram, Chief Engineer (PWD) Bridge & Roads Division), Public Office, Thiruvananthapuram, and Assistant Engineer PWD Roads, PWD Roads Division, Palakkad, respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 7 respectively, to monitor and supervise the construction of a road. He has also sought for a direction to the official respondents to evict the illegal encroachments on both sides of Chirakkapadi-Kanhirapuzha road and also to take adequate steps in the proposed road plan to alleviate the traffic distress of the residents in the locality.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Ext. P3 representation has been filed as early as on 21.06.2019 before the 4^th respondent, the same has not been considered yet. Petitioner has contended that reduction of the width of the road is due to lethargic attitude of the respondents, who did not care to evict the illegal encroachments on both sides of the road. He has also submitted that Chirakapadi-Kanhirapuzha road is of prime importance to the petitioner

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 13721/2021 : 4 :

¶31

and the other residents in the locality.

¶32

The existing construction and the pattern will not solve the traffic woes of the residents in locality.

¶33

As per the proposed road plan, the vehicular movement will not be smooth, as 7m carriageway is insufficient comparing the density of the buildings and the traffic movement in the road. ChirakkapadiKanhirapuzha road connects to many main roads. The present road plan has not taken adequate steps for alloting spaces for bus stops or halting stations, auto and taxi parking stands.

¶34

He has further contended that from Ext. P4, it is clear that the construction of road work is progressing without fixation of boundary, which seems that the respondents are wasting the public money without proper assessment. Further, even though the respondents have admitted that there are encroachments on both sides of the road, so far no action has been taken.

¶35

He has further contended that the official respondents are not supervising the construction; the 6^th respondent and the workers employed by them are doing work according to their whims and fancies. According to him, road construction made without proper assessment, not following the standard procedures for construction and lack of supervision would lead to wastage of public money. Hence, the writ petition. Reliance is made on Kalliyaperumal D.T.K v. District

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 13721/2021

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

Collector, Cuddalore & another [2019 KHC 3483], wherein on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the authorities competent and the field officers concerned are very much aware of all the encroachments within their jurisdiction and in the particular locality and that in spite of their clear knowledge about the encroachment, such authorities are not initiating action to evict such encroachers either on account of their slackness or on account of some corrupt activities.

¶39

Respondent No. 7 has filed a detailed statement denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is also set out in detail the steps taken for the construction of the road. Relevant paragraphs of the said statement is extracted hereunder:

¶40

“3. It is respectfully submitted that Chirakkalpadi - Kanhirapuzha is a road leading to Kanhirapuzha Irrigation Project is from Chirakkalpadi Junction in Kozhikkode Palakkad National Highway. Improvement works by providing BM & BC for this road was accorded Administrative Sanction as per vide G.O (Rt) No. 1502/2016/PWD dated 01.11.2016, Thiruvananthapuram for an amount of Rs. 10 Crore under the Special Investment Scheme for availing fund under Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB). Based on the administrative sanction, the Government under Chief Engineer, PWD Roads and Bridges were assigned to prepare Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the above works with new technology and road planning. Kerala Road Fund Board (‘KRFB’ for short) was made the special purpose vehicle (SPV) for executing the work. Accordingly, necessary fund allotment and fund allocation from KIIFB based on the

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 13721/2021

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

DPR, Financial Sanction of 30.26 Crore has been obtained from KIIFB as per No. APR-1/310/2018/KIIFB dated 16.03.2018 and Technical Sanction of 30.26 Crore has been obtained as per No. PKD 20182019/2017/4219 dated 11.05.2018.

¶44

The work was entrusted to the 6^th respondent vide Agreement No. 64/PWD006-20/PD/PMU-KRFB 2018-19 dated 28.11.2018 of the Project Director. PMU-KREB, Thiruvanantapuram for agreed PAC of Rs 24,33,39,023.80/-. The site handed over to him on 14.12.2018 with stipulated time of completion fixed to 13.06.2020.

¶45

According to approved TS estimate, the work had a pavement width of 7 meter for Bituminous Concrete. No changes have been made since then. Total construction width including shoulder and drains is 11.40 meter. This road has an average 18 meter right of way. Since this work is proceeding based on approved alignment, wherever encroachments restricts construction width, all such were evicted before road construction. The work envisages the demarcation of the road boundary. Based on the request from this office for demarcation to the Revenue Department, the Taluk Surveyor had measured and provided a sketch of the road. Based on the sketch provided from the Taluk office, this office identified encroachments and evicted encroachments wherever essential to proceed with work. Further encroachments if any, which hampers the progress would be removed and the work would be completed as per the specifications. The work is being done in accordance with the KIIFB work standards. Therefore, from time to time the Technical Resource Wing of KIIFB conducts inspection of this work.

¶46

It is submitted that the culvert is built in the work according to the approved drawing. In normal areas, the inner side of the drainage is built up with 0.60 x 0.60 m width and height. Drainage has

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 13721/2021

¶48

: 7 :

¶49

been constructed large size where the runoff is high. All activities are done as per standard and specifications only. As this work is a KIIFB funded project, supervision of the site is done by Site Supervisors from KRFB. The work is monitored by the Assistant Engineer, the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer of PWD according to the duties and responsibilities assigned. The work is being carried on the site as per the instructions of the officials. The averment raised by the petitioner with regard to the irregularities are baseless and is stoutly denied.

¶50

Further, it is reiterated that KRFB Officials carry out periodical inspection and as and when the public raises any complaints, specific visits are made to the inspect the same and wherever it is necessary, instructions are given. As stated hereinbefore, the site was handed over to the contractor on 14.12.2018 with stipulated time of completion up to 13.06.2020. To do the utility shifting works as part of this road work, payment was made by KIIFB to KSEB in February 2020 and KWA in December 2019 only. In addition, permission was obtained from the Social Forestry Department of the Forest Department only on 31.08.2019 for auctioning and cutting down the trees on the sides of the PWD road which are obstruction to this work. After that, started auctioning and cutting down and remove the trees. Further, due to the monsoon season, the crisis caused by the COVID epidemic, labour shortage and the recent Panchayath and Assembly elections this work could not completed within time. Hence, extension of time of completion was granted up to 30.09.2021 by the agreement authority. So far, 71% of physical progress is achieved in this work. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the averments/allegations raised in the writ petition is

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 13721/2021

¶52

: 8 :

¶53

untenable and is made to suit the filing of this public interest litigation.”

¶54

Going through the statement filed by the 7^th respondent, it

¶55

could be deduced that the construction is as per the project design and that no serious irregularities could be noticed. It is also seen that the work is being monitored by the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD. Even though there is some delay in the execution of the work, as of now, it is stated that 71% of the physical progress has been achieved. Therefore, we are of the view that no further directions are required as prayed for. However, we direct respondents 2 to 7 to complete the project without any further delay.

¶56

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is

¶57

disposed of.

¶58

sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶59

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶60

¶61

W.P.(C) No. 13721/2021

¶62

: 9 :

¶63

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13721/2021

¶64

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TENDER DOCUMENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 15.09.2018.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.06.2019.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.03.2021.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.03.2021.

¶65

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶66

/True Copy/

¶67

PS To Judge.

¶68

Pradeep K., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep K., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhaenul Aswad, Vs Kerala Sports Council

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Vs P.P.Sainabi

The State of Kerala Vs Jasmitha

Dr.a.Mohamed Najeeb Vs Kerala Cricket Association

A.J.Lonachan Vs the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala

Thomas P O Vs Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala