K C DEVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the detailed instructions given to him by the 3rd respondent Assistant Engineer submits that work so far done has been only with the objective of protecting the life and properties of a large number of public who are living on the northern side of the Manikanteswaram Perookada road. A project report is under preparation for finding a permanent solution for the flood problems in the locality. The project will be finalised only after consultation with the affected parties including the petitioner.

(2.) Heard Sri. Manu V., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Suddhir, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and Sri.Mathew G.Vadkkal, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. Sri.Manu would invite my attention to the sketch prepared by the Village Officer and forwarded to the Government Pleader along with the written instructions and submit that Killy river is situated hardly 100 feet away from the property in question and it is absolutely unnecessary for the 3rd respondent to have made the present arrangement of draining the excess water into the petitioner's property. They could have more effectively prevented the flooding by draining the water to the river itself, the counsel submits.

(3.) The standing counsel for the Panchayat submits that during monsoon the river overflows and therefore the suggestion that water can be drained to the river is not workable one. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the respondents 2 and 3 can be directed to implement the project, which is in contemplation, as a permanent solution for the floodding water in the area within the time frame.