A.V. Ashraf v. The Taluk Surveyor (Chavakkad), Thrissur District & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 23RD ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S)** ## **PETITIONER:** **A.V.ASHRAF, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. ABDULLAKUTTY, AMBALATH VEEDU, VENMAD PAVARATTY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.BALAKRISHNAN GOPINATH SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) KUM.NIHARIKA HEMA RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE TALUK SURVEYOR(CHAVAKKAD) THRISSUR DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SURVEYOR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003.** - **2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES), CHAVAKKAD SUB DIVISION, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680 506.** - **3 CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS AND BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **4 THE KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT BOARD (KIIFB) 2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. REP BY SECRETARY** - **5 THE KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, T.C/4/1654, MAYOORAM, BETHAVEN GARDENS, KOUDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **6 THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **7 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.** WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 2 :: - **8 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.** - **9 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **SRI. M.R.SABU, SR.GP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R6 TO R9 ADV. SMT.P.A.JENZIA FOR R5 SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR FOR R5** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 3 :: ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 15[th] day of October, 2020 ## **S.MANIKUMAR, CJ** The apprehension raised by the petitioner in the instant Public Interest Litigation is regarding non initiation of survey, demarcation and further procedures for the Karuvanthala-Chakkamkandam PWD Road Project. The Karuvanthala – Chakkamkandam road is a 13.8km route that runs in a southnorth direction, covering the Panchayats of Venkitangu, Mullassery, Pavaratty and Thycad/Guruvayoor Municipality of Thrissur District. 2. This road is sandwiched between NH-66 and SH-69, and connects many places of pilgrimage for various communities, including the famous Guruvayoor Sreekrishna Temple. The PWD took over the road in the year 2006-2008. PWD roads require an 8 meter minimum width. The fund allocation of Rs.35 Crores was done by the State Legislature in the new revised budget of 2016-2017. 3. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that there is a move by the Public Works Department to divert the said funds allocated in the revised budget of 2016-17 earmarked for the improvement of the KaruvanthalaChakkamkandam road to an NH-66 project for constructing bridges. It is also alleged that as per Exhibit-P9, the 1[st] respondent/the Taluk Surveyor (Chavakkad) is trying to avoid the responsibility of survey and demarcation, which is his statutory duty. 4. Petitioner has contended that it is also to be noted that the condition of the present road is deplorable and it has become a highly accident prone area. WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 4 :: 5. The reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows: i. to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or directions calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and P9 and quash the same. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction directing the first respondent ot act expeditiously and commence the survey and demarcation of the karuvanthala – Chakkamkandam road. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction directing respondents 2, 3 and 6 to prepare a Detailed Project Report (DPR) of the Karuvanthala – Chakkamkandam Road project expeditiously and submit the same to the 4[th] respondent through the 5[th] respondent herein for implementation. iv. Declare that the citizens using the KaruvanthalaChakkamkandam Road have a right to legitimately expect a proper implementation of the said INR 35 crore road project by the instrumentalities of the State under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. v. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P10 and P11 representation submitted by the petitioners before the respondents 4 and 6 herein. 6. Supporting the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, Mr. Balakrishnan Gopinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, _inter alia_ , contended that the budgetary allocation of Rs.35 Crores was administratively approved and the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Board (KIIFB), Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Secretary, respondent No.4, was to allot the same to the project, provided the Detailed Project Report (DPR) was submitted to it by the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) namely, the 5[th] respondent/the Kerala Road Fund Board. However, the 5[th] respondent has to receive the DPR from the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads and Bridges), Thiruvananthapuram, 3[rd] respondent, who as per Exhibit-P6, appears to WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 5 :: have made a complete volte-face and now wishes that the said Rs.35 crores to be diverted to the construction of 3 bridges on NH-66 namely, the Perumbuzha 1 and 2 and the Kandassankadavu bridges. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is against the established norms of the 4[th] respondent, as stated in Exhibit-.P7. ExhibitP6 is, therefore, liable to be quashed. As per Exhibit-P6, an amount of INR 85.1 crores is required for completion of the 3 parallel bridges namely, Perumbuzha 1 and 2 and Kandassankadavu bridges on NH 66 (NH 17). A sum of INR 35 Crores allocated for Karuvantahla – Chakkamkandam road is far below the estimated cost of the said bridge construction estimate. 8. If this amount is diverted, as requested in Exhibit-P6, then there will not be any chance to get a good quality 8 meter wide PWD road to the Panchayats. Exhibit-P7 _per se_ states that funds allotted through the 4[th] respondent cannot be diverted or applied to other objectives. Hence the attempt of the 3[rd] respondent to try and have the said fund diverted is also illegal. There is a very high incidence of accidents on the said road due to its deplorable condition. Exhibit-P9 is also bad in law in so far as the first respondent abdicates the responsibilities to survey and fix the boundaries of the road which is statutorily cast on them. 9. It is the legal duty of the Taluk Surveyor (Chavakkad), Thrissur District, 1[st] respondent, to take all steps to properly measure and demarcate the road and conduct necessary corrections and alterations to the survey records, if so required, using due process of law as prescribed under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 6 :: Act. Exhibit-P9 is illegal and deserves to be interfered with. Exhibits-P10 and P11 are pending consideration before respondents 4 and 6 respectively. 10. Learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. M. R. Sabu submitted that the allegation regarding diversion of fund, earmarked for the KaruvanthalaChakkamkandam PWD road, made by the petitioner is incorrect. On instructions, he further submitted that the road project would require only Rs.3.5 Crores, but inadvertently, Rs.35 Crores was sanctioned. Therefore, the excess fund was intended to be utilised for the construction of three bridges, mentioned in the Chief Engineer's communication dated 24.10.2018. Insofar as the road work is concerned, it is submitted that a tender was floated and a contractor has to be engaged for construction of Karuvanthala-Chakkamkandam PWD Road. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads and Bridges), Chavakkad Sub Division, respondent No.2, it is categorically stated that the allegations made by the petitioner are not fully correct and that he has not stated the true state of affairs pertaining to the work carried on/to be carried out, in relation to the improvement of the said road. The circumstances which led to the issuance of Exhibit-P6 are explained as under: "A. Karuvanthala - Chakkamkandam road has a length of 13.86 K.m. which starts from Karuvanthala Centre of the important Major District Road (MDR) of the locality i.e. Thriprayar - Kanjani Chavakkad road and ends at Angadithazham of the same Major District Road. The entire reach of the road comes under Manalaur Constituency. Formerly this road was maintained by the local body authorities. This road acts as a main link road to the above said WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 7 :: Major District Road and this road traverses through the portion of Venkidangu Grama Panchayat, Mullassery Grama Panchayat, Pavaratty Grama Panchayath and Guruvayoor Municipality (previously Thaikkad Grama Panchayat). As per the Govt. Order G.O. (Rt.) No. 1172/2004/PWD Dated, Thiruvananthapuram 23' November 2004, this road has been converted to a Major District Road . Based on the resolutions passed and submitted by the above said local bodies, which assures that the road portions may be handed over to PWD with a minimum width of 8 meters, thereafter the road has been taken by the PWD in existing stage and there onwards the road is being maintained by PWD by executing various renewal and maintenance works as and when required. But the road was physically not demarcated to a width of 8 meters or the boundaries of the road has not been identified till date by conducting any survey or demarcation with the help of Revenue authorities by the Local Bodies. By a letter dated, 01-022019 of the Tahsildar, Chavakkad (marked as Exhibit P9) it is clearly stated that due to the incomplete survey report it is difficult to ascertain the exact boundaries of the road. Recently, the procedures for the demarcation of boundary of the road by the Revenue Authorities are progressing. Hence even now the road is seen with non uniform width varying from 6.00 meters to 8 meters from place to place. B. In the meantime, a major work has been executed by the Public Works Department on the Karuvanthala Chakkamkandam road during 2016-17 and the fund for the said work was included in the budget 2015-16 and consequently the Administrative sanction for providing Bituminous Meccadam & Bituminous Concrete works to Karuvanthala – Chakkamkandam – Angadithazham road Ch.8/642 to 13/862 and Pavaratty kavala Junction in Chittattukara – Kundukadavu road 1[st] phase has been accorded for Rs.200 lakhs WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 8 :: vide G.O.(Rt)No.1930/2015/PWD dated 22-12-2015. In this project it was only proposed to improve the existing road width to BM & BC level from Ch.8/642 to 13/862 considering the proximity of the reach to Chavakkad Town as a Ist Phase. No provision for widening or land acquisition had been given in this project. In continuation to this project, a proposal for improving the balance length of road from 0/000 to 8/642 (which was not included in the 1[st] phase), for an amount of Rs.350 lakhs had already been submitted for ncessary sanction or approval. C. In the Budget 2016-17 Rs.35 crores has been provided for Karuvanthala-Chakkamkandam road and subsequently, in principle sanction has been accorded for the same vide Exhibit P3, including the project under the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board. As a matter of fact, the fund required for the work pertaining to the improvement of the balanced portion of Karuvanthala–Chakkamkandam road ie., from 0/000 to 8/642 is only to the tune of around 3.5 crores instead of which the provision allotted in the budget 2016-2017 for the said work was Rs.35 crores. D. As explained earlier, Karuvanthala-Chakkamkandam road acts only as a link road to the main Major District Road of the locality i.e., Thriprayar-Kanjany-Chavakkad road. A major portion of about 5.22 km of the said road had already been improved to Bituminous Meccadam and Bituminous Concrete level in 2016. In continuation to this project, for the improvement of the balance portion of the road in the existing width, it requires only Rs.350 lakhs for the time being. Hence, considering lesser importance of the road when compared to other Major District Roads and bridges requiring urgent nature of improvements of renovations in the same constituency, in consultation with the local MLA and other delegates it has been proposed to divert the huge fund allotted to the WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 9 :: particular road for reconstructing the three major bridges situated in the Thrissur-Vadanappilly State High Way which requires urgent renovation due to age and heavy density of the traffic and including heavily loaded trucks through the road. Even though the proposal has been submitted, sanction or approval is yet to be received from the Government. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that the funds allotted for improving KaruvanthalaChakkamkandam road is being diverted for other projects is not fully correct and the proposal to utilize the funds allotted for the said road for improving the three bridges on the ThrissurVatanappally State Highway is due to the fact that for improving the Karuvanthala-Chakkamkandam road, the budgetary requirement is around Rs.3.5 crores and, therefore, it was proposed to utilize Rs.35 crores earmarked in the budget for the construction work of three bridges which requires urgent renovation/re-construction. E. In the meantime, for the improvement of Karuvanthala– Chakkamkandam road to Bituminous Meccadam & Bituminous Concrete standard from Km 0/000 to 8/650 (Balance portion), the provision was made in the budget of 2017-18 allotting Rs.350 lakhs as budget allocation and based on the said budgetary provision, administrative sanction was accorded by the Government for improvement of Karuvanthala–Chakkamkandam road vide G.O.(MS) No.9/2018/PWD dated 28.3.2018 for an amount of Rs.350 lakhs, as is evident from Exhibit R2(a). Pursuant to Ext.R2(a), the third respondent issued technical sanction by Exhibit R2(b) order dated 9.12.2018. Tender was invited from registered bidders for the aforesaid work by Tender No.109/SECCA/2018-19 dated 5.1.2019, as evident from ExhibitR2(c). Details of the e-tender details pertaining to the aforesaid work downloaded from the departmental website dated 25.5.2019 is produced as Exhibit R2(d). Tenders WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 10 :: submitted was scrutinized and the contractor quoted the lowest bid M/s. Ojaswis Construction Company was selected and the selection notice dated 20.2.2019 has been issued to the constructor, as evident from Exhibit R2(e). Thereafter, an agreement was executed with the contractor vide agreement No.22/SECCA/19-20 dated 6.6.2019 and the period fixed for completion of the work is nine months. F. Since the grievance raised in the writ petition pertains to the diversion of funds allocated for improvement of KaruvanthalaChakkamkandam road, with the inclusion of the said project in the budget for 2017-18 for an amount of Rs.350 lakhs, the grant of administration sanction, the consequent e-tendering, and execution of the agreement with the contractor, the grievance raised by the petitioner stands substantially redressed and, therefore, it is prayed that this Court shall uphold the above contentions and dismiss the writ petition.” 12. In reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, PWD Roads and Bridges), Chavakkad Sub Division, respondent No.2, petitioner has stated that the 2[nd] respondent is attempting to dilute the seriousness of the issue, by stating that the normal maintenance works carried out from time to time are actually for the new road project. According to the petitioner, the circumstances stated in paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit by the 2[nd] respondent is not fully correct. He further submitted that Karuvanthala - Chakkamkandam road is not a link road. Instead, it was proposed as an alternative coastal road project to ease the pressure from other major district roads of the locality. As stated by the respondents, this road serves four Panchayats of Venkidangu, Mullassery, Pavaratti WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 11 :: and Guruvayoor Municipality (previously, Thaikkadu Grama Panchayat). Petitioner has further stated that the revenue authorities have not attempted to survey and demarcate the road and ensure the same to be of a uniform width of eight meters. The road is extremely narrow at many places where the width is just around five meters. That apart, petitioner has contended that Exhibit-P9 is bad in law, as the complete resurvey of the State has been completed and the revenue authorities have the complete details of the resurvey with them. 13. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, the 2[nd] respondent admits that it is difficult to ascertain the exact boundaries of the road. The 2[nd] respondent has stated that recently, the procedures for the demarcation of boundary of the road by the revenue authorities are progressing. He has also admitted that even now the road is seen with non-uniform width. This shows the pathetic condition of the road that sees immense amount of traffic throughout the day and that is relied upon by thousands of people on a daily basis to reach various locations. There is a very high accident rate due to the deplorable conditions of the road. 14. Petitioner has further stated that the respondents have no interest in developing the said road nor using the budget efficiently to develop the road. They are only lagging behind on the developmental works for an indefinite amount of time. It has been admitted by the 2[nd] respondent in the 3 paragraph that the road does not have the mandated width. It is also admitted by the 2[nd] respondent in the 3[rd] paragraph of the counter affidavit that recently the procedures for the demarcation of boundary of the road by Revenue Authorities are progressing. The WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 12 :: road was acquired in the year 2004 and admittedly even in the year 2019 - the work is lagging. 15. Petitioner has further contended that the averments made by the 2[nd] respondent in paragraph 5 are false and entirely fabricated. The 3.5 crores would not even suffice to acquire the land needed to achieve the legally mandated width of 8 m for PWD roads. In paragraph 6, the 2[nd] respondent begins by stating that the allegation made by the petitioner that the funds allotted for improving Karuvanthala - Chakkamkandam road is being diverted for other projects is not fully correct, however admits to the fact towards the end of the paragraph that there is indeed a proposal as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition: that is to utilize the 35 crores earmarked in the budget for the construction work of three other bridges elsewhere. The petitioners are aggrieved by this proposed diversion of funds. 16. Petitioner has further contended that it can clearly be observed from the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent that the developmental work is lagging behind with regard to Karuvanthala - Chakkamkandam road. It has also been admitted by the 2[nd] respondent that it is only recently that the demarcation procedures have begun. It is to be remembered that this road was taken over by the PWD in the year 2004, and even in the year 2019; i.e. even after fifteen years the road lacks the statutorily mandated width of 8 meters. Such is the condition of the road that thousands rely on. 17. Further, it is contended that as per Exhibit-P12 letter dated 13.07.2020 WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 13 :: issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Chavakkad, to the petitioner, in response to a letter sent by him to the Chief Minister's office, the Assistant Executive Engineer has now made it further clear that the apprehensions of the petitioner in the writ petition is well founded. It is stated therein that there is no plan to widen the road to 8 meters. It has also been made clear that the respondent Panchayat and revenue department have not been helpful in any manner at all even though they were approached. For the foregoing reasons, petitioner has submitted that his grievance is not being addressed nor any explanation is being provided. 18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 19. Material on record discloses that Exhibit-P5 is the information furnished to the petitioner, by the Public Information Officer and it reads thus: “No. FA – 2/370/2018/KIIFB date: 18.04.2019 Shri K.V. Ashraf Ambalathu veedu, Venmenadu (P.O) Thrissur-680 507. Sir, Subject: KIIFB (Economic and administration) – Right to Information Act 2005 – Regarding making replies available. Reference: Your request under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 14.02.2018. Answers to your questions sub clauses 2, 3 as per the referenced letter is provided below in accordance with Right to Information Act. Administrative sanction has been issued by the Public Works Department for an amount of rupees 35 crores as per g.O. (Ordinary) No. 1502/2016/P.W.D dated 01.11.2016 towards the WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 14 :: implementation of the Karuvanthala-Chakkamkandam road building project by KIIFB included in the renewed budget speech of 2016-2017. However, detailed project report or other details regarding the said project has not been submitted at KIIFB as of date. Yours Sincerely, Annie Jula Thomas Joint Fund Manager & Public Information Officer Allowed to be issued Section Officer” 20. Perusal of Exhibit-P5 shows that Government have sanctioned a sum of Rs.35 Crores vide G.O. (Ordinary) No.1502/2016/P.W.D dated 01.11.2016 towards implementation of Karuvanthala-Chakkamkandam road building project by KIIFB, included in the renewed budget speech of 20162017. However, on the request of Manalur MLA that construction of three bridges have to be carried out vide letter dated 24.10.2018 (Exhibit-P6), the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads and Bridges), Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.3, has requested the Principal Secretary, PWD, Thiruvananthapuram, to issue renewed administrative sanction. Exhibit-P6 dated 24.10.2018 reads thus: “No. C.E/R&B/T.S.R/5995/1B The Office of the Chief Engineer Public Works Department Bridges and Administration Thiruvananthapuram 695033 Date: 24/10/2018 Sender Chief Engineer Receiver Principal Secretary Public Works Department Thiruvananthapuram. WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 15 :: Sir, Subject: Including Perumbuzha I and II bridges and Kandassamkadavu bridge instead of KaruvanthalaChakkamkandam road included in KIIFB-regarding Reference:- 1. Government letter No.PWD-D1/282/2018/PWD dated 20/04/2018 2. Letter numbered H.D.G.L/2018 of the Thrissur Street Division Executive Engineer dated 17/10/2018 As per the letter referred above, the KaruvanthalaChakkamkandam road has received administrative sanction for an amount of Rupees 35 crores as per the government Order Order G.O.(Rt) No.1502/2016/PWD dated 01/11/2016 including it under KIIFB 2016-17, instead of the same it is now requested by the Manalur MLA Shri Murali Perunneli that the construction of the 3 Bridges be carried out. This report as herein below is made as per his request. The above mentioned 3 bridges are situated in the Thrissur – Vadanapally State Highway. The procedures to renovate the Thrissur-Vadanapally State Highway along with land needed for a 17 meter width road is under progress. Hence, as part of this, it is integral to construct Perumbuzha 1, II, and Kandassamkadavu parallel bridges. Of which approximately, Rs.18.83 crores for Perumbuzha – 1 bridge, approximately Rs.16.27 crores for Perumbuzha- 2 bridge and approximately Rs.50 crores for the Kandassamkadavu bridge inclusive of land acquisition amounting to a total of Rs.85.52 crores expenditure outley, hence it is requested that renewed administrative sanction be granted to include the construction of Perumbuzha 1 & 2 bridges and Kandassamkadavu bridge instead of Karuvanthala – Chakkamkandam road which received government order including it under KIIFB 2016-17. Yours Sincerely, **==> picture [87 x 24] intentionally omitted <==** ## 21. Though as per G.O.(Rt.) No.1502/2016/PWD dated 01.11.2016, Government have sanctioned Rs.35 Crores for Karuvanthala - Chakkamkandam road, on the basis of the letter No. CE/R&B / GLAS/2017-18 dated 21.03.2018 of the Chief Engineer (Roads & Bridges), Thiruvananthapuram, Government have WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 16 :: issued orders in G.O.(Ms) No.9/2018/PWD dated 28.03.2018 [Exhibit-R2(a)], according administrative sanction for 355 roads and bridge works, which includes Karuvanthala-Chakkamkandam road, estimated at Rs.350 lakhs. Exhibit-R2(a) order reads thus: ## “ **Government of Kerala Abstract** Public Works Department – Administrative Sanction & Special Sanction for 355 road & bridge works during the financial year 2017-18 – Accorded – Orders issued. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ## **PUBLIC WORKS (G) DEPARTMENT** ## G.O.(Ms) No.9/2018/PWD Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 28/03/2018 -------------------------------------------------------------------------Read: Letter No. CE/R&B/GL-AS/2017-18 dated 21.03.2018 from the Chief Engineer (Roads & Bridges), Thiruvananthapuram ## **ORDER** The Chief Engineer (Roads & Bridges) as per his letter read above has furnished detailed estimates of 335 roads & bridges for an amount of Rs. 1034.39 Crore under various PWD Divisions, for issuing Administrative Sanction & Special Sanction during the financial year 2017-18. 2. Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to accord Administrative Sanction & Special Sanction for 355 road and bridge works (given as Annexure to this Government order) for an amount of Rs.1034.39 Crore (Rupees One Thousand Thirty Four Crore and Thirty Nine Lakh only), subject to the condition that the Chief Engineer (Roads & Bridges) shall submit the estimates of the works above Rs. 5 Crore to the Chief Technical Examiner for scrutiny before issuing Technical Sanction. ## By order of the Governor **SREEKALA DEVI R SPECIAL SECRETARY** ” ## 22. Exhibit-P9 dated 01.02.2019 is a letter written by the Tahsildar (Land Records), Chavakkad, to the District Collector, Thrissur about the encroachments and to resolve the problems. Exhibit-P9 is extracted hereunder: WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 17 :: “B3-13702/18 Taluk Office, Chavakkad Dated: 1/2/2019 Sender Tahsildar (land records) Chavakkad Receiver District Collector, Thrissur. Sir, Sub:- Regarding Karuvanthala-Chakkamkandam coastal PWD road. Ref:- 1. Mass petition given before this office in the leadership of P.V. Kunjumoidu and A.V. Ashraf. 2. Letter of this office dated 01.12.2018 by the same number. 3. Minutes of the meeting held at 4 pm at this office on 01.12.2019. Your attention is kindly sought towards the above references. The total length of the Karuvanthala – Chakkamkandam road that begins at Venkidangu village survey no.78 of Nattika Firka, Chavakkad Taluk and goes through Kundazhiyoor, Mullasery, Venmenad, Pavaratti villages and ends at Survey No.65 of Chavakkad village of Chavakkad Firka is 13.86 metres. While building construction permits are given from Pavaratti, Mullasery, Thaikkad, Venkidangu Grama Panchayats the width of this important road is not considered, instead the width of the grama panchayat road is considered at 8 metres. This is referenced in the petition. There is a complaint that this road has been encroached at many places and there are constructions, wall etc that have been made into this road. The survey records of the villages under which this road falls were transferred to the revenue administration in 1929. In the ___________ conducted by the Taluk Surveyor using the above survey records, nothing has been recorded to find the side measurements, width or encroachment. In these circumstances, it is impossible for the revenue department to determine the boarder using the existing survey records. A meeting was conveyed over this subject at this office in the presence of the Deputy Collector (LA) on 01.02.2019. This meeting was attended by the concerned Panchayat Secretaries, PWD Asst. Executive Engineer (Chavakkad) etc. WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 18 :: It is the Local Self-government Institutions that must measure and hand over the roads with the stipulated width and boundaries to the PWD, after removing the encroachments and it is the PWD and the local self-government institutions that should thereafter protect the road. Hence it is requested that necessary directions may be given to the officials of these two departments to solve the problems mentioned under (1) reference petition. Yours Sincerely Tahsildar (_______)” 23. Exhibits-P10 & P11 are the representations dated 23-02-2019 submitted by the petitioner to the Chairman, Kerala Infrastructure Investment Board, and the Hon'ble Minister, PWD, requesting to take adequate steps for utilising Rs.35 crores alloted for KaruvanthalaChakkamkandam road without making any changes. 24. Notice inviting tender dated 5.1.2019 has been issued by the office of the Superintending Engineer for the work – Retender – Improvements to Karuvanthala Chakkamkandam road BM and BC work km 0/000 to 8/650. At this juncture, at the risk of repetition, paragraphs 5 and 7 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent is reproduced: “5. In the Budget 2016-17 Rs.35 Crores have been provided for Karuvanthala - Chakkamkandam road and subsequently, in principle sanction has been accorded for the same vide Exhibit P3, including the project under the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board. As a matter of fact, the fund required for the work pertaining to the improvement of the balanced portion of Karuvanthala–Chakkamkandam road ie., from 0/000 to 8/642 is only to the tune of around 3.5 crores instead of which the provision allotted in the budget 2016-2017 for the said work was Rs.35 Crores. WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 19 :: 7. It is further submitted that in the meantime, for the improvement of Karuvanthala – Chakkamkandam road to Bituminous Meccadam & Bituminous Concrete standard from Km 0/000 to 8/650 (Balance portion), the provision was made in the budget of 2017-18 allotting Rs.350 lakhs as budget allocation and based on the said budgetary provision, administrative sanction was accorded by the Government for improvement of Karuvanthala–Chakkamkandam road vide G.O.(MS) No.9/2018/ PWD dated 28.3.2018 for an amount of Rs.350 lakhs, as is evident from Exhibit R2(a). Pursuant to Ext.R2(a), the third respondent issued technical sanction by Exhibit R2(b) order dated 9.12.2018. Tender was invited from registered bidders for the aforesaid work by Tender No.109/SECCA/2018-19 dated 5.1.2019, as evident from Exhibit-R2(c). Details of the e-tender details pertaining to the aforesaid work downloaded from the departmental website dated 25.5.2019 is produced as Exhibit R2(d). Tenders submitted was scrutinized and the contractor quoted the lowest bid M/s. Ojaswis Construction Company was selected and the selection notice dated 20.02.2019 has been issued to the constructor, as evident from Exhibit-R2(e). Thereafter an agreement No.22/SECCA/19-20 dated 06.06.2019 was executed with the contractor and the period fixed for the completion of the work was 9 months.” 25. Thus, it could be seen that, in the year 2017-2018, for the same work, the revised estimate was Rs.350 lakhs only and not Rs.35 Crores. Though the petitioner has contended that it is a case of diversion of funds, initially allotted to other works, we do not find any supporting material, except the letter of the MLA Shri Murali Perunneli, requesting the authority to take up the works in respect of three bridges. WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 20 :: 26. On the basis of Exhibit-R2(a) Government order dated 28.03.2018, tender has been floated for the construction of Karuvanthala - Chakkamkandam road. At this juncture, there is no need to quash Exhibit-P6 letter dated 24.10.2018 issued by the Chief Engineer (Roads & Bridges), PWD, 3[rd] respondent, and Exhibit-P9 communication dated 01.02.2019 issued from the office of the Tahsildar (Land Records) to the 7[th] respondent respectively. 27. Based on a detailed project report of the Chief Engineer (Roads & Bridges), PWD, respondent No.3, Government have issued Exhibit-R2(a) Government order dated 28.03.2018. Much water has flown under the bridge. Petitioner has projected his case on the basis of order G.O.(Rt) No.1502/2016/PWD issued in the year 2016, forgetting for a moment that in 2018, the amount has been revised pursuant to the letter of the 3[rd] respondent. As on today, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner do not survive. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. sd/- **S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** jes WP(C).No.8326 OF 2019(S) :: 21 :: ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: - EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2004. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR KIIBFB DATED 8.8.2016. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1502/2016/PWD DATED 1.11.2016 ISSUED BY PWD. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.9.2017 FROM TH 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE KIIFB - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.9.2018. - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.1.2019, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR(LAND RECORDS) TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.02.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.2.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CHAVAKKAD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH TRANSLATION. ## RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: - EXHIBIT-R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.9/2018/PWD DATED, 28-03-2018 FOR AN AMOUNT OF 350 LAKHS. - EXHIBIT-R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2018. - EXHIBIT-R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NO.109/SECCA/2018-19 DATED 05.01.2019. - EXHIBIT-R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER DATED 25.05.2019. - EXHIBIT-R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED 20.02.2019. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE