Kerala High Court
Safiya vs National Highway Authority Of India on 27 May, 2013
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2013/6TH JYAISHTA 1935
WP(C).No. 13120 of 2013 (L)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
-------------------------
SAFIYA, W/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 66 YEARS,
CHERUVALAPPIL HOUSE, THEKKEPPURAM , POST PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM DIST
BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110075
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
N.H SUB DIVISION, CHAVAKKAD, POST CHAVAKKAD,
PIN-680506
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
PONNANI, POST POONNANI, PIN-679577
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C. VINCENT
R1 BY SRI.THOMAS ANTONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 13120 of 2013 (L)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------
EXT.P1:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO 2383/1991 OF PONNANI SRO DTD
3/8/1991.
EXT.P2:THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE FRUIT SHOP DTD 9/5/2013.
EXT.P3:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
NEW EVERST MEDICALS DTD 9/5/2013.
EXT.P4:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD
17/5/2013
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
----------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
cl
P.R.RAMACHANDRAN MENON,J
------------------------
W.P.(C). NO.13120 OF 2013
------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
"a). Issue a writ to call for the records leading upto Exts.P2 and P3 orders and to quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
b). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibits P4 objection filed by the petitioner before proceeding with Ext.P2 and P3 orders passed by him.
And
c). Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 and P3 orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent absolutely without any regard to the actual facts and figures and that too, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There is no basis for the allegation levelled against the petitioner as to the encroachment effected to the National Highway and W.P.(C) No. 13120/2013 2 that the petitioner is enjoying the property exclusively owned and possessed by him and nothing more.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately on obtaining Ext.P2 and P3, the petitioner rushed to the second respondent by filing Ext.P4 statement of objections. The prayer is to cause the same to be considered before the proceedings are finalised.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submitted on instructions that Ext.P2 and P3 can be treated as notices, that Ext.P4 objection filed by the petitioner will be considered and that the matter can be finalised accordingly. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, Ext.P2 and P3 are not in proper form as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law.
5. In said circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent by issuing proper notice to the petitioner in conformity with the statutory prescription inviting objections and to be finalised after giving an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, Ext.P2 and P3 are set aside with liberty to the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice as to the W.P.(C) No. 13120/2013 3 alleged cause of action, upon which the petitioner shall submit explanation/reply, if any. The proceedings shall be finalised only after considering the said explanation/reply to be filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated and after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dpk /True copy/ P.S to Judge.
W.P.(C) No. 13120/2013 4 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dpk W.P.(C) No. 13120/2013 5