Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI. M.T.MATHEW, S/O. THOMAS versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SRI. M.T.MATHEW, S/O. THOMAS v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 12784 of 2006(S) [2006] RD-KL 2856 (7 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12784 of 2006(S)

1. SRI. M.T.MATHEW, S/O. THOMAS
... Petitioner

2. SMT. NIRMALA SASI, (MEMBER OF 6TH WARD

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

5. THONDERNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

6. K.J.JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH,

7. V.J.VARKEY, S/O. JOSEPH,

For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)

For Respondent :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :07/12/2006

O R D E R

V.K.Bali,C.J. &

S.Siri Jagan,J.

W.P.(C).No.12784 of 2006-S

Dated, this the 7th day of December, 2006



JUDGMENT

V.K.Bali,C.J. (Oral) This writ in the nature of public interest litigation has been filed by M.T.Mathew, a former elected member of the Thondernadu Grama Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that the Thondernadu Grama Panchayat and Thavinjal Grama Panchayat lie on either side of Mananthavady river. Both the Panchayats are thickly populated and there are about 300 Adivasi families even in the Thondernadu Grama Panchayat. People in both the Panchayats are using a dilapidated wooden hanging bridge for crossing the river and reaching the other shore. The present condition of the wooden bridge is highly risky and dangerous. Realising the dangerous condition of the present wooden hanging bridge, Smt.Radha Raghavan, the former member from North Wayanad Legislative Constituency allotted an WP(C).No.12784/2006-S amount of Rs.15 lakhs from the Local Development Fund of the M.L.A. for construction of a foot-bridge at Valadu Koodal Kadavu in Thondernadu Grama Panchayat during the financial year 2005-06. Necessary technical sanction was also obtained for the said proposal, as would be made out from a location map of the foot bridge proposed as Exhibit P1. Pursuant to the allotment of fund, approval of the site and technical sanction, a seven member committee from among the beneficiaries was constituted and the 7th respondent was elected as the Convener thereof. Pursuant to the award of the work in favour of the 7th respondent as the beneficiary committee and the handing over of the site for the construction, work was commenced, for which considerable materials were also brought at the site. The 6th respondent, who is stated to be in inimical terms with the 7th respondent, wanted to see that the foot bridge is never constructed by the 7th respondent. Due to his influence, the 2nd respondent - District Collector issued a telephonic direction to the 5th respondent for WP(C).No.12784/2006-S stoppage of the construction of the bridge and accordingly the Panchayat has issued order dated 3.12.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Collector would have no right or authority to interfere with the work in any manner, but in spite of representation made to him, no steps have been taken by him to continue the construction and complete the same in a time framed manner.

2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, Mr.M.R.Sabu, Senior Government Pleader has put in appearance for respondents 1 to 4. The factual position as enumerated above is not in dispute. That there is indeed necessity of making a bridge is also not denied. Some procedural wrangles are the only cause as stated by the counsel for which the bridge could not be constructed.

3. Considering the undisputed facts as mentioned above and also utmost requirement of a bridge, we order that the required bridge be constructed maximum within a period of one WP(C).No.12784/2006-S year from today. Surely, if all the concerned authorities proceed in the right direction in the matter of construction of the bridge, the procedural difficulties can be sorted out and the bridge should be constructed. Disposed of as indicated above. V.K.Bali Chief Justice S.Siri Jagan Judge vku/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.