Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.C. George vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its

Author: K.Padmanabhan Nair

Bench: S.Siri Jagan, K.Padmanabhan Nair

       

  

  

 
 
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

              FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/24TH CHAITHRA 1934

                                 WP(C).No. 4787 of 2006 (T)
                                    --------------------------

    PETITIONER(S):
    -------------------------

    1. K.C. GEORGE, AGED 41 YEARS,
        S/O. K.C. CHERIAN, KALLATTU HOUSE, KAVUMPADY,
        MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.

    2. SHAJI V.P., AGED 46 YEARS,
        S/O. PAULOSE, RESIDING AT VETTUKATTIL HOUSE,
        EAST MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 673.

       BY ADVS.SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
                     SMT.P.V.PARVATHI
                     SMT.REENA THOMAS
                     SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS

    RESPONDENT(S):
    ---------------------------

    1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
        CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
        TRIVANDRUM.

    2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

    3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KAKKANAD.

    4. KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT (KSTP),
        DIVISION OFFICE, REST HOUSE COMPOUND, MUVATTUPUZHA,
        REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

    5. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
        TRANSPORT PROJECT, TRIVANDRUM.

    6. SHEELA ELIAS, W/O. DR.PAUL.T.KUNNATH,
        KUNNATH HOUSE, EAST MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA.

    7. V.H. BASHEER, S/O. HASSAN, RAWTHER,
        VAKKATHIKALLIL HOUSE, EAST MARADY P.O.,
        MUVATTUPUZHA.


sts                                                               2/-

                                      -2-


WP(C)NO.4787/2006

     ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED

     *R8: THE TEAM LEADER, M/S LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC,
         PROJECT CO-ORDINATING CONSULTANCY, TC 47/1795,
         2ND FLOOR, RAJADHANI COMPLEX, KILLIPALAM, KARAMANA.P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     *ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/3/08 IN WP(C)NO.4787/2006



        R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
        R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
                       SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY
           ADDL.R8 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
                  ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
      ON 13-04-2012, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO. 6979 OF 2006 AND
      WP(C).NO. 7573/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
      THE FOLLOWING:




sts

WP(C)NO.4787/2006

                                APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1     COPY OF THE SKETCH

P2     COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER ALONG WITH
       THE SKETCH SHOWING THE EXISTING, REVISED AND ALTERNATE ALIGNMENT

P3     COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY KSTP

P4     COPY OF THE REPLY/SUBMISSION MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED
       12/08/05.

P5     COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED
       3/2/2006.

P6     COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/9/2005 IN WP(C)NO.25296/2005.

P7     COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/1/2006 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF THE
       ACT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.

P7(A) COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/1/2006 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF THE
       ACT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.

P8     COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO EXT.P-7 & P-7
       (A) NOTICES.

P9     COPY OF THE LITHO MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF NATESAN

P10    COPY OF THE SAID OBJECTION/PETITION DATED 2/11/2005.

P10(A) COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/1/2006 ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER
       FOR PERSONAL HEARING.

P11    COPY OF THE SECTION 4(1) NOTIFICATION

P12    COPY OF THE SECTION 6(1) NOTIFICATION

P13    COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO SMT.SHEELA ALIAS

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

R4(A) COPY OF THE OLD ALIGNMENT

R4(B) COPY OF THE NEW ALIGNMENT.

R4(C) COPY OF THE NEW ALIGNMENT SUPERIMPOSED ON OLD ALIGNMENT

R4(D) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 25296/05

sts                                                    2/-
                              -2-

WP(C)NO.4787/2006


R4(E) COPY OF THE LETTER TO SPL.TAHASILDAR KAKKANADU DATED 25/6/05.

R4(F) COPY OF THE LETTER TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR EKM DATED 16/7/05

R4(G) COPY OF THE LETTER TO SPL.TAHASILDAR KAKKANADU DATED 24/8/05.

R6(A) COPY OF THE COMBINED SKETCH CONTAINING THE EXISTING ROAD AND
      ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT & REVISED ALIGNMENT.

R8(A) COPY OF THE PROFILE SHOWING THE BACK GROUND OF THE RESPONDENT'S
      PROFICIENCY

R8(B) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PWD AND THIS
      RESPONDENT.

R8(C) COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT.

R8(D) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN REPORT.

R8(E) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/03/2008 IN WP(C)NO.31789 OF 2006 OF THIS
      HON'BLE COURT.



                                    /TRUE COPY/



                                    P.A.TO.JUDGE


sts



                   K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
                      =======================
           W.P.(C) Nos.4787/2006-T, 6979/2006-E & 7573/2006-B
                      =======================

                Dated, this the 29th day of November, 2007


                                ORDER

The main grievance of the petitioners in these three writ petitions is that after fixing alignment and issuing notification for acquisition of a smaller extent, due to exertion of political pressure and undue influence, the authorities made substantial change in the alignment and a new alignment was fixed. It is admitted by the State that Louise Berger was appointed as an expert to conduct a project study and submit alignments. It is also admitted that the consultant after conducting a study has submitted alignments and a project study report. The contention now raised is that in respect of this particular area due importance was not given and so all dangerous curves were left as it is without straightening. It is also submitted that the consultant was instructed to look into the defects and black spots. It is further submitted that a detailed study was conducted and a new alignment devoid of all black spots and curves eased were fixed. So it is admitted that the alignment W.P.(C) Nos.4787/2006-T, 6979/2006-E & 7573/2006-B -2- originally proposed by the consultant was unscientific and hence a new alignment is to be fixed. If that be the case, I am of the view that this particular consultant is to be blacklisted with notice to him and if it is legally possible, the consultation fee paid to him is also be recovered. But before taking any decision notice has to be issued to the consultant.

2. So there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent- State represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat to file an affidavit stating as to whether the alignment originally fixed by the consultant was defective and with black spots. On receipt of such an affidavit, notice will be issued to the consultant and a decision regarding the further orders to be passed in the matter will be taken after hearing the consultant.

3. Communicate a copy of this order to Chief Secretary to Government. Hand over copy to the petitioners and also to respondents. The affidavit shall be filed within one month from today.

Post after one month.

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE jp