Kerala High Court
State Human Rights Protection Centre vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 29612 of 2007 (S)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
1. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION CENTRE,
THRISSUR, KERALA, REGD. NO.R.389/2003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
JOY KAITHARATH.
2. JOY KAITHARATH, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. ANTONY, VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR-680 693.
BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. HON'BLE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT (IN CHARGE), STATE OF KERALA
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF ENGINEER PWD, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD ROADS DIVISION, ERNAKULAM.
5. NATIONAL HIGHWAY OF INDIA,
CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE
CHIEF ENGINEER.
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
7. DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM.
8. CORPORATION OF COCHIN-
PARK AVENUE ROAD, COCHIN,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
9. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
GCDA OFFICE,
COCHIN-
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
R,R.9 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SC,GCDA
R, BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,COCHIN COPN
R,R1,3,4,6&7 BY ADV. ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
R,R5 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY
R,R9 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,GCDA,GREATER COCH
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R BY SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC.COCHIN CORPN.
SPL. GP. SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO.29612/2007
APPENDIX
EXT.P1: TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DAMAGED CONDITIONS
OF THE ROADS APPARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/10/2007 BY THE
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS EHIBITS:
ANNEXURE - 1: TRUE COPY OF THE DIVISION-WISE DETAILS OF NON-PLAN
ISSUED UPTO 10/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS &
BRIDGES).
ANNEXURE - II: TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT - WISE STATEMENT OF PROGRESS
ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER ( ROADS & BRIDGES)
ANNEXURE - III: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE DISTRICT - WISE
RECTIFICTION WORKS PREPARED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (NATIONAL
HIGHWAYS).
ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PROGRESS OF THE
WORK PREPARED BY THE SUPERINTENDNET ENGINEER, KSTP
/TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE.
W.P.(C)NO.29612/2007
APPENDIX
PETITIOERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DAMAGED CONDITIONS
OF THE ROADS APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY.
EXTP2; TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/10/2007 BY THE
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE - 1: TRUE COPY OF THE DIVISION-WISE DETAILS OF NON-PLAN
ISSUED UPTO 10/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS &
BRIDGES).
ANNEXURE - II: TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT-WISE STATEMENT OF PROGRESS
ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER( ROADS & BRIDGES)
ANNEXURE-III: TRUE COPY STATEMENT SHOWING THE DISTRICT-WISE
RECTIFICATION WORKS PREPARED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (NATIONAL
HIGHWAYS).
ANEXURE IV; TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PROGRESS OF THE
WORK PREPARED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KSTP.
/TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JDUGE.
MANJULA CHELLUR C.J. & A.M.SHAFFIQUE,J.
- - - - - - - --------- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 29612 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Manjula Chellur C.J.
We have gone through the records. This Public Interest litigation is filed for a direction to the respondents to take urgent steps for repairing and maintenance of roads in Kerala especially in Cochin Corporation. According to the petitioner, commutation on roads of Kerala has become very difficult and none of the vehicles could ply on roads with reasonable speed due to non repair of public roads, presence of huge pot holes and gutters. This also leads to accidents is the contention. Claiming that respondents are duty bound to maintain roads and non maintenance of roads is violative of statutory duties cast upon them, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs;
i). issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate steps in a war foot manner to repair the roads, especially the roads in major cities in Kerala.
W.P.(C) No. 29612/2007 2
ii). issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 7 and 8 to take immediate steps to repair the roads which comes under their jurisdiction without any further delay.
iii). direct respondents 1 and 2 to submit a statement showing how much money they have apportioned to repair and maintenance of roads from the tax collected for the year 2006-07.
iv). to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of the case .
2. As early as on 23/10/2007, statement of the first respondent was placed on record explaining efforts made by the then Chief Minister holding a meeting of the officials of the Department on 6/9/2007 and issued several directions to take up all repairs and maintenance works on PWD roads as well as National Highways on war footing. In pursuance of the same, Rs.320 crores was sanctioned for road repairs, as indicated in Annexure I, allotting different amounts to different districts which includes not only road repairs, renewal programme, but also flood damage repairs, Sabarimala, Sabarimala additional funds and also natural calamities.
Having gone through the steps taken and the detailed reports W.P.(C) No. 29612/2007 3 so far as the PWD, National Highways and Kerala State Transport Project as detailed in the statement, we are of the opinion, having regard to the length of time since the statement of objections is filed, whatever is stated in the statement must have been implemented, otherwise, the petitioner would have sought interim directions or further directions in the matter. Accordingly, the proceedings are dropped and the writ petition is closed.
.
Sd/-
(MANJULA CHELLUR), CHIEF JUSTICE.
Sd/-
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE) JUDGE.
dpk. /true copy/ PS to Judge.
W.P.(C) No. 29612/2007 4