Kerala High Court
WP(C)/29956/2012 of PREMARAJAN Vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 29956 of 2012 (T) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- 1. PREMARAJAN, S/O.LATE KANARAN, KARUMBANAKKAL HOUSE,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934WP(C).No. 29956 of 2012 (T) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
---------------------------
1. PREMARAJAN, S/O.LATE KANARAN, KARUMBANAKKAL HOUSE, S/O.LATE KANARAN, KARUMBANAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTUNGAL WEST P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE.
2. JANARDHANAN K., S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, "GREESHMAM, MUTTUNGAL P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, "GREESHMAM, MUTTUNGAL P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE.
3. SUREKHA.S.,
D/O.LATE DR.T.SAHADEVAN, SUDARSHANA, CHOMBALA P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE.
4. RAJISHA R.,
D/O.LATE RAVEENDRAN P.P., PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHOMBALA, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. CHOMBALA, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE.
5. P.P.SUKUMARAN, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING DO S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING DO
6. VINODINI I.P.,SUDARSHANA, CHOMBALA P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------------
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI.PIN-682 019
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001
BY SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.
BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C)NO.29956/2012
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
APPENDIX
P1COPY OF THE APPROVED LAND ACQUISITION PLAN
P2COPY OF THE APPROVED LAND ACQUISITION PLAN
P3COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINAL DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
P4COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/3/2012RESPONDENT DATED 26/3/2012
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) No. 29956 of 2012
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dated, this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are before this Court seeking for a directionto be issued to the first respondent to take appropriate actionon Ext. P4 representation.
2. Normally, the prayer sought for appears to be innocuous. But the question is whether, a writ of mandamusshall be issued to the first respondent, considering the naturegrievance sought to be redressed.
3. Going by the pleadings and proceedings, it appears that some acquisition steps are being made by the concernedauthorities of the National Highway, particularly N.H. 17between Kannur to Kuttipuram. It is stated that a notificationhas been issued in the dailies dated 31.12.2011, alsospecifying the survey numbers of the property, which includesthe petitioners' properties as well. The case of the petitionersis that the acquisition was originally stipulated to be made with a different alignment and it has now been caused to be changed at the instance of somebody behind the curtain,causing much loss and hardships to the petitioners. Thepetitioners apprehend some foul play with regard to thechange in alignment and it is in the said circumstances, thatExt. P4 representation has been filed before the firstrespondent, for conducting an enquiry by the CBI. It is withthe said grievance that the petitioners have approached thisCourt, with a prayer to cause Ext. P4 to be considered within areasonable time.
4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for theCBI as well.
5. Considering the facts and figures as given by thepetitioner, this Court finds it difficult to accede to the reliefsought for, more so, when there is absolutely no case hasbeen made out, so as to sustain the enquiry by the 'CBI'. Asmentioned hereinbefore, the grievance is only with regard tothe 'change in alignment', whereby the petitioners came to be : 3 :
affected by inclusion of their properties. Change in alignment may be due to technical aspects, or such other reasons, whichmay have to be explained by the National Authority. But thepetitioners have not chosen to implead the said authority inthe party array.
Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court findsthat the writ petition is devoid of any merit. No tenableground is raised in support of the claim. Interference isdeclined and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)
kmd