Dismissed

Ahmmed Kutty P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2022WP(C)/5256/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, noting that the petitioner is aggrieved by road construction violating the approved plan and permit, disposed of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within three weeks after hearing both sides, ensuring inspection is conducted with notice to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within three weeks after hearing both sides; inspection, if any, shall be conducted with notice to the petitioner and the 4th re

Ahmmed Kutty P Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 5256 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

AHAMMED KUTTY P
AGED 84 YEARS
S.O KUNHAVARANKUTTY, RESIDING AT PARAMMAL HOUSE,
KULANGARA, PANNICODE PO, MUKKAM VIA, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673602

¶7

BY ADVS.
MOLTY MAJEED
C.A.MAJEED
K.H.ASIF
P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR
RUBEN GEORGE ROCK

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ERNAKULAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT (KSTP), HEAD OFFICE, T.C. 11/339, SREE BALA BUILDING, KESTON ROAD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶11

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) KSTP DIVISION, KANNUR, NEAR ENGINEERS CENTRE, BABY BEACH ROAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670013

¶12

4 SREE DHANYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695010

¶13

WP(C) NO. 5256 OF 2022 2

¶14

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 5256 OF 2022 3

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2022

¶19

The petitioner, who is an employee retired from Health Service, is aggrieved by the construction of a road by the respondents departing from the Original Plan and Drawings. The petitioner states that the construction of the road is not as per the approved plan and permit from the Panchayat. The upgrading work of the road is now being carried out in violation of the plan and profile approved by the Kerala State Transport Project. As per the Approved Plan, the Original Ground Level towards right is 27 and Original Ground Level towards left is 26.884 and Ground Level below PCL is 26.823. The said levels have been violated. The petitioner would further submit that the drainage was originally proposed abutting the Carriage Way. The alignment is also changed by the 4^th respondentbuilder.

¶20

WP(C) NO. 5256 OF 2022 4

¶21

Aggrieved by the said arbitrary action of the 4^th respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 representation before the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. The respondents may be directed to consider the representation as early as possible and if there is any departure from the Approved Plan in the construction of the road, remedial measures may be taken without delay.

¶22

The learned Government Pleader submitted that as Ext.P7 representation has been forwarded by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent can consider the same, in accordance with law.

¶23

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner raised in Ext.P7 representation dated 12.01.2022.

¶24

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation

¶25

WP(C) NO. 5256 OF 2022 5

¶26

dated 12.01.2022 filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of three weeks, after hearing both sides. If inspection if any is being conducted by

¶27

the 3^rd respondent, it shall be with notice to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO. 5256 OF 2022 6

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5256/2022

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶35

`Exhibit.P-1`	`A TRUE COPY OF TH` `(PAGES 1 TO 6) OF` `16/02/2021`	`E RELEVANT PAGES` `THE AGREEMENT DATED`
`Exhibit.P-2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `LEVELS OF THE PRO` `CHAINAGE POINTS F`	`PLAN IN RESPECT OF THE` `POSED ROAD AT THE` `ROM 49+00 TO 51+022`
`Exhibit.P-3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE LEVELS OF THE` `CHAINAGE POINTS F`	`PROFILE IN RESPECT OF` `PROPOSED ROAD AT THE` `ROM 49+00 TO 51+022`
`Exhibit.P-4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SHOWING THE TYPIC` `DIFFERENT CHAINAG`	`WIDENING SCHEDULE` `AL CROSS SECTIONS AT` `E POINT`
`Exhibit.P-5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TYPE 1A, FOR TWO` `IN RURAL SECTION`	`TYPICAL CROSS SECTION` `LANE PAVED SHOULDERS`
`Exhibit.P-6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `CERTAIN TERMS OF`	`ANNEX-1 CONTAINING` `THE AGREEMENT`
`Exhibit.P-7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SUBMITTED BY THE` `AND 3RD RESPONDEN`	`REPRESENTATION` `PETITIONER TO THE 2ND` `TS`
`Exhibit.P-8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ACT`	`APPLICATION UNDER RTI`
`Exhibit.P-9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT`	`REPLY GIVEN BY THE 3RD`

¶36

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBIT NIL

Ahmmed Kutty P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmmed Kutty P 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amritha Das Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Pradeep P., Vs State of Kerala

M.K Mohammed Saleem Vs T.T Nisamudheen

K P Shajan Vs Thrissur Corporation

Kunnamkulam Nidhi Limited Vs Rajesh Verma

David P.V Vs Ministry of Environment