High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 12 KL CK 0091

C. Thulaseedharan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 10 December 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Murali Purushothaman, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 28463 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 331 words

Murali Purushothaman, J

1.

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.60 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.301/4 of Kunnathukal Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner is residing in the said property. There is also a commercial building in the property referred above. The property is situated near a busy junction called 'Nilamamoodu Junction'. According to the petitioner, there is a sharp curve in the road abutting the aforesaid property. The respondents have commenced the work of renovating the road in front of the property of the petitioner for the establishment of Malayora Highway. The respondents used to lay hollow pipes beneath the road to draw cable to avoid tampering of the road after tarring. However, in the portion of the road that abuts the property of the petitioner, the cables are laid on the surface of the existing road. According to the petitioner, laying the cables on the surface of the road would cause steep bumps on the surface of the road and this would cause water logging and other hazards to the petitioner's property and this will also be a reason for accidents at the junction.

2.

Accordingly, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent, who is also the Project Director of Kerala Road Fund Board, requesting to avoid laying pipes on the surface of the existing road or in the alternative to re-locate the pipes to other convenient location. Though the 2nd respondent has acknowledged the receipt of Ext.P4 representation, so far no steps have been taken on the said representation.

3.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

4.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent/Project Director, Kerala Road Fund Board to consider Ext.P4 representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before the tarring work of the said road is completed.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.