Dismissed

Charles Biju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2021WP(C)/9889/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This public interest writ petition challenged a Panchayat's decision to construct a bridge across the Vijayam Canal using MLA Asset Development Funds. The petitioners alleged the project was unnecessary, wasteful, and motivated by private interest. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding the Panchayat's decision bona fide and within its constitutional powers under Article 243. The Court hel

What the court decided

AI extract

Charles Biju Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 9889 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 CHARLES BIJU AGED 46 YEARS S/O. SEBASTIAN, THE PRESIDENT CHELLANAM 20-20, REG. NO. EKM/TC/347/2020, C/O. JOSEPH K.A., KIZHAKKEVETTIL HOUSE, NEAR ATD BUS STOP, KUMBALANGI, KANNAMALI, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT AZHINAKKAL HOUSE, NORTH CHELLANAM P.O, KOCHI-682 008

¶10

2 JOSEPH K.A, THE SECRETARY, CHELLANAM 20-20, REG. NO. EKM/TC/347/2020, C/O.JOSEPH K.A., KIZHAKKEVETTIL HOUSE, NEAR ATD BUS STOP, KUMBALANGI, KANNAMALI, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, NEAR ATD BUS STOP, KUMBALANGI, KANNAMALI, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

3 FRANCIS K.J, KALATHUMKAL HOUSE, WARD NO. 14, CHELLANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SOUTH CHELLANAM P.O, KOCHI, PIN-682 008

¶12

4 ANTONY T.A, THAIKOOTHATHIL HOUSE, WARD NO. 14, CHELLANAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOUTH CHELLANAM P.O, KOCHI, PIN-682 008 BY ADVS. B.PRAMOD SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶15

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

¶16

3 PALLURUTHY BLOCK PANCHAYAT MARUNNUKADA, AROOR-THOPPUMPADY RD, MARUNNUKADA, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, KERALA-682 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶18

¶19

4 CHELLANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANDIKKADAVU P.O, ERNAKULAM 682 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

5 THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD SUB DIVISION, PALLURUTHY BLOCK PANCHAYAT, MARUNNUKADA, AROOR-THOPPUMPADY RD, MARUNNUKADA, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN-682 006

¶21

6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030

¶22

7 VARGHESE JOSY P, S/O. VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MOOLAMKUZHY P.O, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-682 008

¶23

8 SHABU M.K, MEPPULLY BUILDERS, 1ST FLOOR, VENKITESWARA ARCADE, SOUTH CHALAKUDY-680 307

¶24

9 BIJU JOHN, S/O. JOHN, KALIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, NORTH CHELLANAM P.O, KOCHI-682 008

¶25

10 ADDL. R10. K.P. PRASANTH, AGED 45 YEARS S/O PRASANNAN, KALATHITHARA HOUSE, SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.

¶26

11 P.N. SELVAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN, PUTHENCHIRAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.

¶27

12 SHEEJA SUNIL, AGED 38 YEARS W/O CHINNAPPAN, PERINGODE HOUSE, SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.

¶28

13 KA. SASI, AGED 62 YEARS S/O ATHUMANI, KULATHITHARA HOUSE, SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.

¶29

14 MADHAVI, AGED 69 YEARS W/O KUNJAN, PUTHAMCHIRAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.

¶30

15 SHABI M.R, AGED 46 YEARS S/O RAJAN, MANIYANGANAD HOUSE,

¶31

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶32

¶33

	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
16	SHAJAN T.R,
	AGED 44 YEARS
	S/O RAJAN, THAZCHAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
17	K.P. SADHANANDAN,
	AGED 68 YEARS
	S/O PALAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI 682008.
18	RAMANI,
	AGED 70 YEARS
	W/O KUNJAPPAN, THAREPARAMBU HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
19	OMANA,
	AGED 56 YEARS
	W/O PRAKASAN, KALATHITHARA HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCH - 682 008.
20	SEVI,
	AGED 50 YEARS
	S/O JOSEPH, THOPPIPARAMBIL HOUSE
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682008
21	DEVASIKUTTY,
	AGED 54 YEARS
	S/O JOSEPH, THOPPIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
22	MARY,
	AGED 69 YEARS
	W/O DEVASSY, KATTIKADU HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
23	V.J. PETER,
	AGED 60 YEARS
	S/O JOSEPH, VILANGANADU HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
24	JOSEPH,
	AGED 71 YEARS
	S/O ANTONY, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
25	XAVIER,
	AGED 58 YEARS
	S/O NICHLAV, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶34

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶35

¶36

	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
26	JOSSEY,
	AGED 56 YEARS
	S/O JOSEPH, THOPPIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
27	A.X. MATHEW,
	AGED 52 YEARS
	S/O ZAVIER, ARACKAL HOUSE
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
28	V.R. PRADEEP,
	AGED 44 YEARS
	S/O RAMAN, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
29	ANEESH,
	AGED 40 YEARS
	S/O ANURUDHAN, KALATHITHARA HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
30	V.P. PONNAPPAN,
	AGED 60 YEARS
	S/O PARAMU, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
31	HARIDAS,
	AGED 50 YEARS
	S/O PARAMU, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
32	ANTONY,
	AGED 59 YEARS
	S/O DEVASSEY, KATTEKKADU HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
33	LAWRANCE,
	AGED 47 YEARS
	S/O KATHREENA, THAIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
34	KARUMBI,
	AGED 64 YEARS
	W/O AYYAPPAN, KALATHITHARA HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
35	SANITHA V.P,
	AGED 36 YEARS
	W/O PONNAPPAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
	SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCH - 682 008.

¶37

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶38

¶39

ADDL. R10 TO R35 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/07/2021 IN IA.2/2021. BY ADVS. SRI.TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR FOR R10 TO R35 SEI.DINESH R. SHENOY FOR R4 SRI.EBIN MATHEW FOR R4

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶42

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2021

¶45

SHAJI P.CHALY,J.

¶46

This is a public interest writ petition filed by the President and Secretary of an organization registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. According to the petitioners, the said organization was formed by the residents within the limit of the Chellanam Grama Panchayat, Ernakulam District, with the object of addressing various problems faced by the people as well as for the overall development of the Panchayat area. Other submissions are made in order to establish that the public interest litigation filed is with bona fide and genuine interest and they have no personal or private interest in the matter.

¶47

According to the petitioners, in Ward No.14 of the Grama Panchayat, there exists two bridges within a distance of 100 meters across a canal by name “Vijayam Canal''. The bridge on the northern side connects Gunduparambu with Tharepparambu, which leads to Muthukupuram ,and one at the southern side connects Azhipalam with Tharepparambu. The State Highway No.66 (Coastal Highway) lies on the western side of the said Vijayam Canal. The bridge on the

¶48

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶49

¶50

northern side is an old and dilapidated one, whereas the one on the southern side is

¶51

a new construction.

¶52

It is the case of the petitioners that people in the locality have long been demanding for reconstruction of the dilapidated northern bridge, however, no action was taken by the Panchayat Authorities.

¶53

The grievance highlighted by the petitioners is that, matters being so, a new bridge is proposed to be constructed across the said canal at the midpoint of two bridges existing, with the funds allotted from the Legislative Assembly Constituency - Asset Development Fund (LAC- ADF) and the said project was being implemented by the Palluruthy Block Panchayat and Chellanam Grama Panchayat – respondents 3 &

¶54

4, jointly.

¶55

Though the project sanctioned was to construct a bridge, according to the petitioners, what was conceived was a culvert across the canal which has got a width of 7 meters. It was pointed out that the 8^th respondent viz., Shabu.M.K., is said to have been awarded the contract for the construction of the proposed bridge with an estimate of Rs.53,00,000/-. The contention put forth by the petitioners is that the bridge so proposed to be constructed, is totally unnecessary and unwarranted and the same is not in public interest but on the other hand it is a waste of public money.

¶56

That apart it is contended that the proposal to construct the bridge at the site

¶57

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶58

¶59

in question is due to the undue influence exerted by one Varghese Jose P.- 7^th respondent, who is a co-owner of an extent of 2 acres of property on the eastern side of the canal and he wants an easier access to the said property, which is proposed to be used for some kind of tourism activity. That apart it is stated that the people in the locality submitted a representation to the District Collector, Ernakulam seeking to drop the said proposal to construct the bridge and to utilise the said fund

¶60

for reconstruction of the Gunduparambu – Tharepparambu bridge situated on the northern side connecting Muthukupuram, however, no action was initiated. It is thus

¶61

seeking the following reliefs, the writ petition is filed:

¶62

(I) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the original of Ext P7 NOC as well as Ext.P9 agreement and quashing the same.

¶63

(ii ) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 6 to drop the proposal for construction of the bridge referred to in Ext.P7 NOC.

¶64

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 5 to utilize the funds from the LAC-DAF for the reconstruction of Gunduparambu - Tharepparambu bridge connecting Muthukupuram which is on the northern side of the site of the proposed bridge. (iv) Grant such other order as this Hon'ble court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstance of the case.

¶65

Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that there is no

¶66

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶67

¶68

public interest involved in the writ petition and it has been filed purely on political reasons. It is submitted that the proposed concrete bridge across Vijayam canal at Gunduparambu - Thareparambu in Ward No.14 of Chellanam Grama Panchayath, is a project undertaken by the Member of the Legislative Assembly, from Kochi, Shri. K.J.Maxi, from his Asset Development Fund and is not a project undertaken by the Panchayath. The bridge, in fact, provides a link between Ward No.14 and 18 of the Chellanam Grama Panchayath and the Panchayath had granted No Objection Certificate for the same, as there are 16 scheduled caste families in the Thareparambu area to which the bridge is connected, among the 63 persons residing there. The proposed bridge is their long standing demand and it will definitely enable them to have a proper access to the Coastal Road (Main Road) on the west of Vijayam Canal. Therefore, considering these factors, and the proposal made by the Kochi MLA Shri. K.J.Maxi to have the bridge constructed using his Asset Development Fund, and since no burden will be cast upon the Panchayath fund, the Panchayath had granted NOC on 24/1/2020 as per Decision 3(2) of its committee.

¶69

It is also submitted that the existing bridge near Gunduparambu is also proposed to be reconstructed, as and when funds are available to the Panchayath. For this purpose, the Panchayath feels that the construction of the proposed bridge, which is also in public interest, need not be stayed. The matter was discussed in

¶70

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶71

¶72

detail by the Chellanam Grama Panchayath at its meeting held on 15/7/2021 (Decision 1(1)] and it was proposed that the bridge being constructed using the Asset Development Fund of the MLA, it should be completed and the existing bridge at Gunduparambu, which is about 60 mts. away, should also be renovated or reconstructed as soon as the funds are available to the Panchayath.

¶73

It is further submitted that the allegations regarding ulterior motive etc. made in the writ petition, are actually without any basis. As the Gunduparambu bridge is situated about 60 mts. away from the existing bridge, towards the north, the reconstruction of the same will not serve the same purpose or the interest of the scheduled caste families, whose benefit was considered when the Member of Legislative Assembly had cleared the proposal for the Gunduparambu – Thareparambu bridge. The two bridges cater to two different areas and two different sets of people. The construction of the new bridge will not cause any obstruction to the flow of water through the canal and it will not affect the traffic also through the canal, as only small canoes are used through the canal, and there is no boat service through this canal, and none is feasible also.

¶74

Therefore, the Panchayat seeks dismissal of the writ petition. Some residents of the locality got themselves impleaded as respondents 10 to 35 and they have also filed a very detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and reliefs

¶75

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶76

¶77

sought for by the petitioners. According to the said respondents, the motorable bridge, which is on the northern side of the proposed bridge and the people residing on the other side of the canal are using the wooden bridge at the proposed site and the said bridge was demolished for the purpose of constructing a new one. It is also submitted that the proposed site for the new bridge is on the further south, giving access to the road passing through the southern side of the property marked in red ink in Exhibit P20 google map produced by the petitioners. It is also stated that in Exhibit P20, National Highway is identified as #66 and opposite to Corporation Bank and the pathway on the southern side of the property marked in red is leading to the north-eastern side of the area marked in

¶78

yellow ink.

¶79

According to the said respondents, if the bridge is constructed on the side which is marked with a round in yellow ink on the southern side of Exhibit P20, the same would be giving access to the residents of the said area. But the pathway leading towards the eastern side of the area marked with yellow ink is ending in a private property and there is no pathway for residents of the northern side of the area marked in yellow ink and the residents of the northern portion of the area marked in yellow ink would be left with no road access and make the said area accessible by road would require acquisition of so many private properties, which are

¶80

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶81

¶82

small holdings of land owned by 50 private owners, and the same may not be feasible at this point of time. Other contentions are also raised supporting the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayath.

¶83

District Collector, Ernakulam, has filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:

¶84

“3. Gonduparambu Bridge is located at a distance of about 60.00m to the north of the proposed bridge across Vijayam canal. But this concrete bridge has only a width of less than 2.00m. Therefore large vehicles cannot pass through this bridge. This bridge is in a dilapidated condition. There is another concrete bridge named Azheeppalam Thareparambu located at a distance of about 100.00 m to the south of the proposed bridge. However this bridge is also having a width of only 2.00 m and no large vehicles can pass through this bridge. In addition to this, the road through this bridge to Tharepparambu colony can be constructed only with the availability of private land that requires acquisition of the land. With the completion of the new bridge, the residents of Thareparambu colony will be able to reach the Coastal Highway quickly.

¶85

It is respectfully submitted that based on continuous demand of the residents( includes 12 SC families) of Thareparambu area, the Member of Legislative Assembly of the Kochi Assembly constituency, Sri.K.J. Maxy proposed the work, allotted funds from the Asset Development Fund provided during the financial year 2017-18 for the construction of a new concrete bridge. Accordingly, an estimate was prepared, NOC was obtained from the concerned Panchayath and Executive Engineer Irrigation Division Ernakulam. After completing the tender process, the Executive Engineer, LSGD Division Ernakulam

¶86

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶87

¶88

(the implementing officer for this work) entered into an agreement with the contractor and the site was handed over to him. Prior to the commencement of the work the dilapidated wooden bridge was dismantled and removed from site and initial steps for the construction of ring bund had started. The wooden bridge is only used by pedestrians. Even for hospital needs the residents of Thareparambu have to travel a long distance to reach the Chellanam Pandikudy road (Coastal Highway). The proposed new bridge has a width of 5.50 m. With the completion of this new bridge, the economically and socially backward people of Thareparambu area will be able to have improvement in their quality of life.

¶89

The Administrative Sanction is given to this project on 30.12.2019 for an amount of Rs.60 Lakhs. The total project cost for this work is Rs.53,53,354/- and Agreed PAC – 53,03,833/-

¶90

There is no private property between Vijayam canal and coastal highway. The area required for the construction of the approach to the bridge is available on the site.

¶91

It is reiterated that the work of the proposed bridge had started only after receiving the NOC from the Irrigation Department and from Chellanam Panchayath. Once the bridge across the Vijayam canal is completed, there will be no obstruction to the flow of water through the canal. There are several bridges situated parallel to this proposed bridge. If this bridge becomes a reality, it will be a great relief to the residents of Thareparambu.

¶92

As stated hereinbefore, the two bridges which are located at a distance of about 60M to the north and about 100M to the south of the proposed bridge are having a width of only 2M and pass through these bridges. Moreover, Gonduparambu bridge which is to the north of the proposed bridge is in a dilapidated condition and MLA has assured to provide funds for the reconstruction of this dilapidated bridge

¶93

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶94

¶95

also.Thus it can be seen that the bridge now proposed is necessary to cater to the residents of the Tharepparambu Colony who are without transport facilities.”

¶96

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.B.Pramod, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand, Sri.Ebin Mathew for the Panchayat, Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar for party respondents 10 to 35 and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶97

The discussion made above would make it clear that the Panchayath has taken a decision to accord sanction for the construction of a new bridge for better facilities, access and enjoyment of the people residing in the area in question, utilising MLA fund. Even though petitioners have a contention that the new bridge is constructed to protect the interest of the 7^th respondent, no material is placed by the petitioners to establish the same. It may be true, the 7^th respondent is the owner of a large extent of property but that by itself cannot be seen as a circumstance to think and visualise that, the intention of the Panchayat is to facilitate and promote the interest of the 7^th respondent. Respondents 10 to 35 have made a specific contention that, if the bridge, as is pointed out in Exhibit P20 google map produced by the petitioners, is constructed, then larger extent of properties would have to be acquired and therefore, it is not feasible.

¶98

The said contention is supported by the counter affidavit filed by the District

¶99

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶100

¶101

Collector that if the bridge is constructed in the present location, then there is no requirement of any land acquisition. Anyhow, the District administration and the Panchayat are the authority to decide the manner and nature of development that it has to undertake. It is also clear from the counter affidavit of the Panchayath and the District Collector that the dilapidated northern bridge is also being reconstructed by the Panchayat.

¶102

To put it short, the bridge is proposed to be constructed on the basis of a policy decision taken by the Panchayat as requested by the MLA of the constituency. Even though a stray allegation of mala fides is made that the bridge proposed to be constructed is for the beneficial enjoyment of the 7^th respondent, that is not substantiated by any piece of evidence by the petitioners, enabling this Court to rely upon the same and identify as to whether the contentions so raised is bona fide and valid. Moreover, the principles propounded in Article 243 of the Constitution of India make it clear that the Panchayats are functioning as Local Self Government Institutions and they are clothed with sufficient powers under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to carry out and translate the aspects that are dealt with under the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Entry 13 therein deals with Roads, culverts, bridges etc, and therefore it is clear that the Panchayat is discharging its obligations

¶103

under the Constitution, utilising the MLA fund . That apart the construction of the

¶104

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶105

¶106

bridge, apparently being a public utility service and in larger public interest, it is not for this Court to sit under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and decide as to whether the construction proposed would benefit the residents of the locality. Anyhow, residents have come up before this Court and got themselves impleaded and supported the stand adopted by the Panchayath.

¶107

Considering the factual and legal situations, we do not think there is any element of public interest involved in the subject issue, and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner do not inspire any confidence on this court to act upon the same, needless to say, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.

¶108

Sd/-

¶109

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

smv

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶114

¶115

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9889/2021

¶116

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN LITERACY SCIENTIFIC AND CHARITABLE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1955 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BRIDGE ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE.
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BRIDGE ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE.
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE.
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COCONUT TREES TRUNK ERECTED ON THE CANAL BUD.
EXHIBIT P6	SATELLITE PICTURE OF THE LOCATION TAKEN FROM GOOGLE MAP.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 24.01.2020 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 03.02.2021 ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION SENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 15.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED CULVERT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 08.07.2020 ISSUED TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO. 6468/2021 FILED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2017 IN W.P.C NO. 30168/2016.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE IN THE LOCALITY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 83/2021 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI.

¶117

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶118

¶119

EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS QUO DATED 09.03.2021 IN I.A NO. 2/2021 IN O.S. NO. 83/2021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2017 IN W.P.C NO. 15702/2016
EXHIBIT P18	COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH TO I.A. NO. 2/2021 IN O.S. NO. 83/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO. 83/2021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI.
Exhibit P20	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE GOOGLE MAP COVERING THE TWO EXISTING BRIDGES AND THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE.
Exhibit P21	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AREA SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF THE TWO BRIDGES AND THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED NEW BRIDGE.
Exhibit P22	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AREA SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE BRIDGE ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE SITE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE.
Exhibit P23	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AREA SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE BRIDGE ON THE SOUTHER SIDE OF THE SITE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE.
Exhibit P24	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AREA SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE.
Exhibit P25	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/07/2021 ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P26	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30/07/2021 ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P27	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SUB CONTRACT DATED 17/07/2020.
Exhibit P28	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SUB CONTRACT DATED 01/03/2021.
Exhibit P29	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 09/04/2021 IN WPC NO. 9613/2021.
Exhibit P30	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE COMPANY MASTER DATA IN RELATION TO THE COMPANY “PRIDE

¶120

W.P.(C) No.9889 of 2021

¶121

¶122

Exhibit P31

¶123

OF CHELLANAM BACKWATER RESORT PVT. LIMITED. TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE COMPANY MASTER DATA IN RELATION TO THE COMPANY “SPRING FIELD VILLAS AND APARTMENTS”.

Charles Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Charles Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.v.Sujai Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Fathima Vs Palakkad Municipaltiy

Salini V.S Vs Union of India

Ashok Kumar M. Vs the State of Kerala

The Secretary to Government Vs Kitex Garments Limited

Calicut University Vs Sreekumar Varma