Disposed

Pudukad Samagra Vikasana Samithi v. the Union of India

Kerala HC19 Jan 2021WP(C)/2636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondents to ascertain the need for service road construction, lighting, and safety measures on a National Highway section and carry out necessary works expeditiously, noting a submission that the main contract works were completed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to ascertain the need for service road, lighting, and ancillary works and carry out necessary works expeditiously.

Pudukad Samagra Vikasana Samithi Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | 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

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.2636 OF 2016(S)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

THE PUDUKAD SAMAGRA VIKASANA SAMITHI, BEARING REG. NO.496/06, HAVING OFFICE AT PUDUKKAD P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT JOBY PULIKAN, AGED 49, S/O.PULIKAN ANTO, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 301.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD AND SURFACE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶13

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

¶14

3 THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

4 THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶16

5 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G5&6, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI – 110 075.

¶17

W.P.(C)No.2636 of 2016

¶18

¶19

6 GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT OFFICE, PERAMBRA, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR - 680 307.

¶20

SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG FOR R1, SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR GP FOR R2 AND R3, SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, FOR R5, SRI.S.SREEKUMAR(SR) FOR R6 R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH R6 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C)No.2636 of 2016

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2021

¶26

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P2 dated 27.3.2006 and Exhibit P3 dated 14.12.2007 respectively. The petitioner has also sought for a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to immediately take up all the requirements to be done by them, including the construction of the 27 and odd Kms of service roads, to light up the entire stretch, and in places where there is no proper lighting, to install side stones, and to construct barricades, etc, and all such other and further things to have the required safety in the National Highway from Mannuthy to Edapally, within stipulated time limits.

¶28

In this writ petition, the grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the respondents who are now in charge of the National Highway, has imposed substantial amounts as toll which is being realised. But all that is required for the National Highway is not being done by Guruvayoor Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Chalakkudy, respondent No.6. Substantial other issues including the reluctance to construct a service road to the stretch of 27 kms. are also raised.

¶29

W.P.(C)No.2636 of 2016

¶30

¶31

Material on record discloses that on 1.2.2016, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner does not intend to proceed to seek relief No.1. Placing on record the said submission, on 1.2.2016, prayer No.1 has been deleted.

¶32

What remains in the writ petition is the steps to be taken for construction of service road, service road lighting and other incidental needs.

¶33

Mr. S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that the works under the contract awarded have been completed.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

If respondents 1 to 5 are under any of the obligations under the State or National Highways Act to provide for service roads, with lighting and further ancillary works as prayed for, it is their obligation to do so. However, taking note of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6 that the works awarded under the contract have already been completed, respondents 1 to 5 are directed to ascertain the need of service roads, lighting and other ancillary works sought for in prayer No.2

¶36

W.P.(C)No.2636 of 2016

¶37

¶38

of the writ petition and accordingly, carry out necessary works as expeditiously as possible.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

S.Manikumar Chief Justice

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶45

vpv

¶46

W.P.(C)No.2636 of 2016

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INCORPORATION ISSUE	CERTIFICATE OF D DATED 24.11.05.
EXHIBIT	P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE	AGREEMENT DATED 27.3.06.
EXHIBIT	P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 14.12.07.	STATES SUPPORT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT	P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE 20.6.2011.	NOTIFICATION DAED
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED	PROVISIONAL COMPLETION DATED 4.12.2011.
EXHIBIT	P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE 1.9.2015.	PUBLIC NOTICE DATED
EXHIBIT	P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDE DATED 20.9.2015.	COMMUNICATION BY THE NT OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY
EXHIBIT	P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE IN HINDU DAILY DATE	PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED D 7.11.2015.
EXHIBIT	P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUS BAY AND BUS STO	TYPICAL LAY OUT OF THE PS DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT	P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT DATED 18	ORDER OF THE PWD .1.2012.
EXHIBIT	P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE 11.11.2015 OF THE T	COMMUNICATION DATED HIRD RESPONDENT.

¶51

/TRUE COPY/

¶52

P.A. TO JUDGE

Pudukad Samagra Vikasana Samithi v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pudukad Samagra Vikasana Samithi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Kunjumalu Pattathiar

Thomas Kuruvila Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Das Vs State of Kerala

Basil Attipetty @ Basil A.G. Vs Union of India

State Environment Protection Council Vs State of Kerala

Kunhikannan Vs Kerala State Human Rights Commission