Gills Mundackal and Sunny vs The Government of Kerala and Others

Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. The petitioners approached this Court on the ground that the present Elanthukadavu Bridge in Kozhikode district has become weak and even otherwise, the Government decided to put up a new bridge and the work actually came to be included in the Kerala Government Budget for 2011-12. According to the petitioners, after initial inspection for construction of the bridge at Elanthukadavu was done, suddenly the respondents have decided to shift the construction of the bridge to Pathayapara, which would cost Rs. 1 Crore more than what was proposed and further, several agricultural lands have to be acquired, if the proposed bridge at Pathayapara is approved.

In response to the Writ Petition, a detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the fifth respondent. According to the respondents, both Elanthkadavu Bridge and Pathayapara Bridge were proposed across the one and the same river Iruvazhinhipuzha connecting Thiruvambadi and Kodanchery Grama Panchayats. The distance between these two bridges is about 1.40 kms. The approach roads for both the bridges will be connecting by the existing roads. According to the respondents, one Pulluarampara town is nearer to the proposed Pathayapara Bridge and the proposed bridge actually helps the old bridges at Elanthkadavu and Pallippadi. The respondents categorically stated that land acquisition is required in both the proposals.

According to the petitioners, after submitting estimate for the bridge at Elanthkadavu, both Thiruvambadi and Kodanchery Panchayats requested the construction of a bridge at Pathayapara in between Elanthkadavu and Pallippadi near Palluarampara town, as it would benefit a large number of people. Therefore, after verification, as the proposed bridge at Pathayapara was the most suitable place for construction of a new bridge, as it can replace the old and narrow bridges at Elanthkadavu and Pallippadi, taking into consideration the entire situation that the new bridge would benefit more people and serve the purpose of old bridges at Elanthkadavu and Pallippadi, they have decided to put up a new bridge at Pathayapara, which is nearer to Pulluarampara town. Having regard to the reason why new bridge was decided to be put up instead of reconstruction of the Elanthkadavu bridge, as a matter of fact, there would be three bridges now, ie., two old bridges at Elanthkadavu and Pallippadi and the new bridge at Pathayapara. If the new bridge is put up with all facilities, as the connecting roads to the earlier bridges also have the same road to be used for the new bridge, automatically, the public would use the new bridge, which would lessen the stress on the existing old bridges. Therefore, all the three bridges would be put to use and it would be help other towns, which are nearer to the new bridge. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the grievance of the petitioners in the so-called public interest litigation cannot be entertained. In case the Elanthkadavu or Pallippadi bridge needs any strengthening and repairs, needless to say, it is the duty of the Government to see that the existing bridges are strengthened or reconstructed and make usable for the public in question. In this connection, they may even consider the representation of the petitioners, if any, and do the needful, if necessity arises. It is also needless to say that if any existing bridge is dangerous to be used and if it is beyond repairs and strengthening, the Government can also take a decision to close down such bridges.

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.