Kerala High Court
Adv.Haripad A.Abdul Latheef vs The Chief Secretary on 24 January, 2008
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 36436 of 2007(K)
1. ADV.HARIPAD A.ABDUL LATHEEF,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) RAILWAY,
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
6. ASST.DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
7. PERMANENT WAY ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.MOHAMMED
For Respondent :SMT.A.RAJESWARI, SC, RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P. (C) No. 36436 OF 2007 K
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24 th January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P7, a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring a portion of the land. Petitioner challenges the notification on the ground that it is vitiated by malafides of the 7th respondent.
According to the petitioner, being an advocate and a social activist, he had initiated a litigation against the 7th respondent for maintaining an unmanned level crossing of the railways. Petitioner submits that this made him to take vengeance on him and the 7th respondent has caused a notification to be issued.
2. According to the petitioner, Ext. P7 is vitiated by malafides.
However, I am not in a position to take cognizance of the allegation of malafides for the reason that the person, the 7th respondent in this writ petition, against whom such allegations are made, has not W.P.(C) No.36436/07
- 2 -
been impleaded in his personal capacity. It is settled law that when malafides are alleged, the person against whom such allegations are made should be made a eo nominee party in the writ petition. This has not been done in this writ petition.
3. That apart, I also notice that a counter affidavit has been filed by the 7th respondent on behalf of the railways. It is stated in the counter affidavit that there is an unmanned level crossing at the center portion on a sharp curve with very much restricted visibility and that trains coming from Ambalapuzha side has very little visibility in this area. In view of this speed of the trains has been restricted to 30 kmph. It has been the policy of the railways to initiate steps to improve the speed at restricted locations with a view to minimize over all travelling time in the interest of nation.
According to the 7th respondent, efforts have been taken to improve the visibility by resorting to land acquisition as a permanent solution.
4. Thus the justification of the railways is that as part of a planned programme to eliminate the speed restriction by manning unmanned gates, for increasing visibility of the tracks by acquiring W.P.(C) No.36436/07
- 3 -
additional lands this notification has been issued. In view of the public purpose that is explained in the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference by this Court.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-