GILLS MUNDACKAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 WP(C).34214/11 4 strengthening, the Government can also take a decision to close down such bridges. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.