Disposed

Aju .M. Johny v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2022WP(C)/224/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged road closure by R&BDEC during railway overbridge construction, alleging violation of Article 19. The court found the closure sanctioned by authorities and temporary, with completion timelines provided. The writ petition was disposed of with no further directions granted.

What did the court decide?

No directions were issued by the Court; the writ petition was disposed of by recording the respondent's submissions.

Aju .M. Johny Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022/27TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 224 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 AJU M. JOHNY AGED 44 YEARS MANDUMPALA HOUSE, THAIKKAD P.O, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680104

¶7

2 SABU .T.J AGED 49 YEARS THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, CHOONDAL P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680503

¶8

3 E.G. SUNIL KUMAR AGED 52 YEARS EZHUVAN VALAPPIL HOUSE, CHAKKAM KANDAM P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN – 680101

¶9

BY ADVS. M.MUHAMMED SHAFI T.RASINI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLICS WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 675033

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶13

3 THE SECRETARY GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680101

¶14

W.P.(C) No.224/2022

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

4 THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER GURUVAYUR SUB DIVISION, GURUVAYUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680101 5 ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, VAILOPPILLI NAGAR, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 682025 6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BRIDGES DIVISION, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN – 680020

¶17

BY ADVS. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) S.AMBILY SHRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SC, ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.224/2022

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.224 of 2022

¶24

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2022

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶27

The petitioners are businessmen having shops situated near the Railway Gate at East Nada of Guruvayur. The petitioners submit that there are more than 100 shops in that location. The 1^st respondent-PWD entrusted to the 5^th respondent-Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd., construction of a Railway Overbridge there. The 5^th respondent suddenly closed the entire Road in front of the shops on 03.12.2021, without any notice, creating havoc among the general public, customers and shop owners. The

¶28

3^rd respondent-Secretary to Municipality immediately interfered, the blockade was removed and road traffic was restored.

¶29

W.P.(C) No.224/2022

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

But, the road on the eastern side was again closed creating untold hardship to the regular customers and shop owners. The petitioners fear that the Road in the western side would be closed soon without providing facility at least for the two-wheelers and three-wheelers to ply. The petitioners sent Exts.P2 to P5 representations to the respondents, which were of no avail.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that about 400 families are depending on the business activities carried on in the area, for their livelihood. The business activities have come to a standstill due to the action of the 5^th respondent. Though sufficient space is available for the 5^th respondent to carry out the Overbridge construction work, without even providing a service road to ply at least two-wheelers, the road has been blocked. The arbitrary action of the 5^th respondent offends the fundamental right of the petitioners and others under Article 19, contended the counsel for the petitioners.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.224/2022

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

The 5^th respondent contested the writ petition, filing a Statement dated 08.02.2022. The 5^th respondent stated that before commencement of construction activities, a meeting was conducted at site along with Local, Revenue authorities of Guruvayur, District Administrative Authorities, other local bodies, and Police Department on 31.07.2021 for the diversion of road traffic. Based on the traffic diversion plan submitted by the 5^th respondent, the District Collector has given permission for closing the level cross.

¶36

In continuation to the implementation of traffic diversion plan, a meeting was conducted by the MLA of Guruvayur Constituency with authorities on 04.11.2021. Accordingly, the traffic diversion was approved and the same has been implemented on 03.12.2021 after giving proper awareness to the public through local media. Since the alignment was fixed along the centreline of existing road, the KWA, KSEB, BSNL, etc. cables are to be shifted to the extreme edge. The shifting of KWA pipelines to the service road portion is under progress. Once the pile cap works and

¶37

W.P.(C) No.224/2022

¶38

: 6 :

¶39

utility shifting are completed, the service road will be made accessible. These works are expected to be completed by last week of April, 2022. The Project Management Consultant M/s. RITES has explored the possibilities to provide path for two/three wheelers. Due to the space constraints within the ROW, providing motor vehicles access is not safe for the time being. However, a pedestrian path of 1.5 width will be ensured on both sides.

¶40

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶41

It emerges from the pleading and submissions on

¶42

either side that the Bridge being constructed has 7.5 metre carriage way width and 1.5 metre footpath on either side. Only a four metre service road is provided on either side of the railway overbridge, including a drain of one metre width. Originally, in the DPR, the bridge was proposed to be constructed using concrete structures for the approach portion and steel composite structure for the bridge portion. Later, in order to reduce the time of construction, it was

¶43

W.P.(C) No.224/2022

¶44

: 7 :

¶45

decided to adopt steel concrete composite structure for the approach portion also.

¶46

The Statement filed by the 5^th respondent would also disclose that the decision to regulate the traffic during the construction work, was taken on the basis of a meeting conducted at Site by the Local Self Government authorities, the Revenue authorities, representatives of the District Administration and the Police Department. The District Collector and MLA of Guruvayur Assembly Constituency were also part of the decision making process. This Court has no reason to believe that the authorities took the decision oblivious of the temporary problems that may be faced by the local shop owners and the public.

¶47

When development activities like road construction, bridge construction, etc. take place, citizens will have to face inconvenience for a temporary period. As long as the inconvenience does not amount to absolute prohibition of right to travel or business, the action of the authorities cannot be accused of violating rights of citizen. In

¶48

W.P.(C) No.224/2022

¶49

: 8 :

¶50

the present writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that Electric Posts, BSNL lines and Water lines in the area are shifted by now, and the present blockade will be lifted by 30.04.2022 and the entire work of Railway Overbridge construction is scheduled to be completed by 03.09.2022.

¶51

In the circumstances, this Court finds no circumstances warranting any directions by this Court. The writ petition is therefore disposed of recording the submissions made on behalf of the 5^th respondent.

¶52

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/14.02.2022

W.P.(C) No.224/2022

: 9 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPI	ES OF	PHO	TOGRAPHS SHO	WING
	SOME OF TH	E BUILDI	NG	IN THE LOCALI	TY
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY 07-12-2021 ACKNOWLEDG	OF THE AL EMENT CA	REP ONG RD	RESENTATION D WITH DATED 10-12-2	ATED THE 021
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY RECEIPT BY	OF THE 2ND RES	AD PON	CARD SHOWING DENT	THE
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY RECEIPT BY	OF THE 3RD RES	AD PON	CARD SHOWING DENT	THE
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY RECEIPT BY	OF THE 4TH RES	AD PON	CARD SHOWING DENT	THE

Aju .M. Johny v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aju .M. Johny 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinodini, Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Suresh Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Thiruvonam Enterprises Vs Chief Controller,Vssc

M/S.Greenworth Infrastructures (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Varkey Thomas Vs the Government of Kerala

Sreejesh a. Nair, Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (Ksfe)