NEELAKANDAN C R Vs. SUNNY MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Petition is filed by three persons, who are not parties to the WP (C), for reviewing our judgment in WP (C) No. 29100/2011 dated 02/11/2011, whereunder we directed the National Highway Authority to immediately take steps for widening of both the National Highways, namely NH - 17 & NH - 47, in the State under the Schemes already proposed by the Authorities.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the WP (C) and learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State.

(3.) The WP (C) was filed as a Public Interest Litigation challenging Ext. P2 issued by the State Government keeping in abeyance Ext. P1 decision taken by the Government to proceed with the development of both the National Highways passing through Kerala, NH - 17 & NH - 47, up to a width of 45 metres. The case of the petitioner in the WP (C) was that the Government after elaborate discussions with the National Highway Authority and all the District Collectors and the Project Directors, took a decision to widen both the National Highways up to the width of 45 metres under the BOT Scheme though National Highways in other States are constructed with a width of 60 metres. In fact, specific direction was issued in Ext. P1 for acquisition of land, and to prevent obstructions all Superintendents of Police were also given direction to give adequate security for the acquisition and taking over of the property for widening the National Highways. Obviously under pressure from those living and doing business in buildings on road sides the Government on 09/11/2010 issued orders keeping in abeyance Ext. P1 decision to proceed with development of the Highways. The petitioner filed WP (C) in public interest stating that the first decision taken by the Government should be implemented without any delay as the widening of National Highways is an absolute requirement for the public in the State. He therefore prayed for vacating the subsequent stay order of the Government produced as Ext. P2 and for a direction to proceed with the development of the National Highways. However, when the WP (C) came up for admission on 02/11 / 2011 the learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that the Government has already recalled Ext. P2 order which means that Ext. P1 has to be implemented, and so much so, the Government will proceed with the acquisition of land and proceed to widen the National Highways. It is in this context, this Court disposed of the WP (C) with a direction to the Government to proceed with acquisition of land for widening of both the National Highways, which is only a direction to implement the decision taken wide Ext. P1 proceedings. It is against this judgment, this Review Petition is filed stating that several people will be affected on account of widening of the National Highways, which is obviously through displacement of residents and persons engaged in the business on road side.