Disposed

Jojo Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2021WP(C)/6558/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged administrative inaction regarding the Peringasseri-Chepukulam road. The court held that due to litigation-eroded funds and the lapse of the PMGSY scheme period, it cannot issue positive directions and disposed of the petition with observations urging the government to resume work.

What did the court decide?

None granted; Writ petition disposed of with an observation to the Government to resuming work.

Jojo Thomas Vs the State of Kerala — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/23TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.6558 OF 2019(T)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 JOJO THOMAS, AGED 47, S/O. THOMAS, CHAKINIYANKAL HOUSE, CHEPUKULAM P.O., UDUMBANNUR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 581.

¶8

2 VINOD O. GOPINATH, AGED 42, S/O. GOPINADHAN, OLIYANIKAL HOUSE, CHEENIKUZHI P.O., IDUKKI-685 595.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2 THE KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, HAVING ADDRESS TC 28/855, CSI BUILDINGS, PULIMOOD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA STATE RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, HAVING ADDRESS TC 28/855, CIS BUILDINGS, PULIMOOD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION UNIT (PIU), POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, (PAU), DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685 608.

¶15

5 ACCREDITED ENGINEER/ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PRIME MINISTER GRAMEENA SADAK YOGANA,(PMGSY), ELAMDESOM BLOCK, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685 603.

¶16

R1-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.6558/2019

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2021

¶23

The petitioners, who are beneficiaries of Peringasseri-Chepukulam road, are before this Court seeking to direct the respondents to complete the procedure and entrust the work and complete the same in a time bound manner as far as the construction and maintenance of the Peringasseri-Chepukulam road, in the interest of justice.

¶24

The petitioners would contend that on either side of Peringasseri-Chepukulam road, there are about 150 families residing. Such families have given land as free surrender for development of the road. Surrender was made during the year 2005 and agreement with the contractor was executed in 2009. In the meantime, some disputes arose between the contractor and the Government and the construction was not completed. Even as on date, there is no progress in the

WP(C) No.6558/2019

: 3 :

construction.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the beneficiaries of the road had given free surrender of land incurring substantial loss of property. The road is not completed because of the administrative lethargy. The statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioners are infringed and therefore interference of this Court invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely necessary.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader filed a statement and an additional statement in the writ petition. The statement would show that pursuant to the contract, construction of culverts, retaining walls and GSB and G2 layers were done before 2011. However, certain disputes arose between the contractor and the Government with regard to unit rate of excavation of hard rock. The contractor filed W.P.(C) No.13821/2012 before this Court. The litigation continued for seven years. During this period, the Department could not move further with the work. Due to the delay in execution of

¶30

WP(C) No.6558/2019

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

work, the already executed road is completely damaged and the work has to be restarted from the initial stage. The statement would proceed to show that the amount required as on date for construction of the Peringasseri-Chepukulam road renovation would be ₹2,39,88,819/-.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader further pointed out that the construction of this road was undertaken under centrally sponsored PMGSY-I Scheme. The Government of India has directed to complete all PMGSY-I works including the work of Peringasseri-Chepukulam road before 31.12.2020. It was practically impossible for the Government to rearrange and execute the work within the stipulated time due to the litigation which was pending. Now that the period of scheme is over, the funds from the Government of India are unavailable.

¶34

In such circumstances, the Government will have to reconsider the issue and arrange funds needed for the construction of Peringasseri-Chepukulam road in State Budget. This is a policy matter and this Court may not give

¶35

WP(C) No.6558/2019

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

any positive direction to the Government, contended the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the respondents had undertaken the Peringasseri-Chepukulam road construction work under the PMGSY-I Scheme. Though the work was started as early in the hear 2011, due to a writ petition filed by the contractor, the work could not be proceeded for about seven years. The litigation went against the Government and this Court directed the Government to pay full amount to the contractor at the rate demanded by him. The judgment of this Court considerably eroded the funds available for the construction of the road. With the funds remaining after complying with the judgment of this Court, the Government could not have completed the road construction.

¶40

It is discernible from the pleadings that substantial amount of funds are required for completion of road construction. In such circumstances, this Court cannot pass

¶41

WP(C) No.6558/2019

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

any positive direction in the matter. However, this Court hope that since the Government is convinced about the requirement of construction of Peringasseri-Chepukulam road and since the citizens have already surrendered their land for development of the road, due attention will be paid by the respondents for resuming the work without much delay.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of with the above

¶45

observations.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/13.01.2021

WP(C) No.6558/2019

: 7 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE COPY	OF	THE	COMMUNICATION BY	THE
	SUPERINTENDEN	T	ENG	INEER, KERALA	STATE
	RURAL ROA THIRUVANANTHA	D PUR	D AM D	EVELOPMENT AG ATED 12.3.09	ENCY,
EXHIBIT	P2 A TRUE COPY BEHEST OF T KSRRDA DATED	OF HE 12.	THE SUP 3.09	NOTICE ISSUED AT ERINTENDING ENGI	THE NEER,
EXHIBIT	P3 A TRUE COPY WITH THE CONT	OF RAC	THE TOR	AGREEMENT ENTERED DATED 12.3.09	INTO
EXHIBIT	P4 A TRUE COPY HON'BLE COUR 21.10.2015	O T WP	F T (C)	HE JUDGMENT BY NO. 13821 OF 12	THIS DATED
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE CO SUBMITTED TO NIL.	PY THE	OF DE	THE REPRESENT VELOPMENT AGENCY	ATION DATED
EXHIBIT	P6 A TRUE COPY CHIEF ENGINEE	OF R,	THE KSRR	COMMUNICATION OF DA DATED 4.10.201	THE 8

Jojo Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jojo Thomas v. the State of Kerala

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

L.Satheek Vs the Chief Engineer

M/S. Irikkur Construction Company Vs Superintending Engineer

Menma Cafe Unit Vs Medical College Hospital Development Society

Joe Joseph Vs Union of India

Managing Director, Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Devasia Joseph

Rajan Erattakulangara Vs Union of India