Soubhagya Residents Association vs State of Kerala and Others

Manjula Chellur, C.J.—The petitioner Association is interested in this litigation as it involves interest of public as the road known as ''Poovanthuruthu-YMA road'' in Ward Nos. 31 and 32 of 2nd respondent Municipality is completely damaged and is not at all motorable. Photographs are furnished along with the Writ Petition to indicate the poor condition of the road. According to the petitioner, this road measures about 2 kms. and this is the only transportation of the people of the locality and the condition of the road is so bad that the public of the locality are finding it difficult to commute on this road. Other than this road, there is another road but only at a distance of 20 kms. According to them, initially the location was within the jurisdiction of Nattakom Grama Panchayat which is now included in Kottayam Municipality.

Though 5th respondent contractor was allocated the work of repairing the road by paying Rs. 1,35,000/- by the Municipality, the road was not completed by him and he abandoned the work. There was an agreement between the 5th respondent contractor and the writ petitioner Association. However, after receiving Rs. 1,35,000/- the contractor completed only few meters of the 2 kms length road and the rest of the road is not at all repaired and remains the same.

According to the petitioner Association, they approached Ombudsman as many people who use this road met with accidents and ultimately Ombudsman passed the order at Ext. P6. In spite of an order of Ombudsman the respondent Municipality did not give any priority to the implementation of the project which was undertaken during 2011-12.

According to learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, they have already initiated proceedings in terms of the order at Ext. P6 and unless Ext. P6 is challenged, there is no justification for the petitioner to approach this Court seeking the reliefs in the writ petition for a direction against the respondent Municipality. The learned counsel further submits, the same is already placed before the Municipal Council and Council has to meet and take decision so that the work could be completed within the time prescribed by the order at Ext. P6.

The learned State Attorney brought to our notice Ext. P4 Government Order sanctioning Rs. 15,00,000/- as early as on 20.03.2012. We have gone through Exts. P4 and P7. Reading of these two documents indicate that prior to sanction of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the year 2012, there was an agreement between the petitioner Association and the 5th respondent Contractor and as per the submissions we note, a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- came to be given by the Association to the Contractor apart from Rs. 1,35,000/- by the respondent Municipality. The fact remains that 5th respondent did not complete the repair work of this YMA road and the fate of the public is as it was at the time of commencement of repair work in 2010-11. How they can recover this money and what action to be taken against the 5th respondent are left to the Municipality and the petitioner Association. The amount of Rs. 15 lakhs sanctioned in the month of March, 2012 has to be utilised for repairing this 2 kms length road which is in a pitiable condition as can be seen from Ext. P5 photographs and if this is the only motorable road available to the public of the locality, the Municipality must give attention on priority basis to this, having regard to sanction of amount as early as in March 2012. In that view of the matter, we direct the 2nd respondent Municipality to complete the repair work on or before January 31, 2013 by utilising the fund already sanctioned.

With the above direction the Writ Petition is disposed of.