ASHRAF KADAVATH v. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA

THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN-695 033. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD(ROADS) DIVISION, MANJERI, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 121. KARANGADAN MOHAMMEDALI S/O. KUNHIMARAKKAR, PATHANAPURAM, VALLIAPUZHA P.O., KEEZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 639. BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI. VENUGOPAL V - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20355 OF 2014 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P10 order of the Kerala Upa Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.1537/2009 A dated 09.05.2014.

2. The petitioner is stated to be in absolute ownership, possession and enjoyment of 56 cents of property comprised in Survey No.376/1 B of Keezhuparamba village. It is stated that the said property abuts a public water channel, which is situated on the eastern side of the petitioner’s property. The petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent and others purchased the properties adjacent to the water channel and filled a portion of the water channel for providing access to their properties. It is alleged that the 4th respondent filed W.P.(C.) No.27973 of 2007 before this Court, suppressing the fact that he had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No.33034 of 2004 and obtained a direction to consider the representation submitted before the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department for construction of a ramp over the water channel from the Panchayat road. It is alleged that, pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, the 2nd respondent passed an WP(C) NO. 20355 OF 2014 3 order on 31.12.2007 to construct a ramp over the Thekkinchuvadu-Koombra foot path under the pretext that the same was being issued in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court and at the request of the panchayat. It is alleged that, thereafter, the work was hurriedly executed without preparing any estimate and without following the PWD manual with a view to help the 4th respondent and others, who had purchased properties abutting the water channel. It is alleged that, according to the information received by the petitioner from the Grama Panchayat, the Panchayat had not made any request to the 2nd respondent to construct a ramp. It is stated that the petitioner’s father had filed a civil suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Manjeri to restrain the 4th respondent and others from continuing with the illegal conversion of the water channel and to restore the channel to its original condition. It is stated in the writ petitioner that the said suit is pending. The petitioner therefore approached the 1 st respondent Lok Ayuktha pointing out the aforesaid facts and seeking action in terms of the provisions contained in the Lok Ayukta Act against respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Lok Ayukta, through Ext.P10 order, has rejected the complaint prompting the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above writ WP(C) NO. 20355 OF 2014 4 petition, challenging that order of the Lok Ayukta.

3. A perusal of Ext.P10 order of the Lok Ayukta would show that the Lok Ayukta had considered in detail the contentions taken by the petitioner before the Lok Ayukta and had found as follows:- ‘ ’3. At the time of arguments counsel for the complainant took a stand that in fact two ramps were constructed one towards North from the Areacode side of Mukkam-Areacode road and another towards North from the Mukkam side of the Mukkam Areacode road and that only the ramp on the East from the Areacode side is what is so authorised to be constructed and not the one towards North from the Mukkom side and that his complaint is regarding unauthorised construction of the ramp from the Mukkom side towards North. From Ext.2 dated 18.10.2007 produced with the complaint, it is seen that Ext.P2 is filed by the complainant’s father along with one Thoduvil Abdulla by way of objection in taking steps to enable access and vehicular traffic over a water-chal alleging that both of them are land owners of property comprised in re-survey Nos.225 and 226 of Keezhuparambu village and they are aggrieved by the attempt to fill a water-chal made for the purpose of flow of rain water and that such a ramp so as to obstruct passage of water through the water-chal may not be made. It is clear therefore that as on the date of the Ext.P2 namely, on 18.10.2007 the attempt was to construct a ramp adjoining the proeprties of the complainant’s father Kadavath Muhammedali and one Thoduvil Abdulla comprised in re-survey Nos.225 and 226. The Government Pleader submits that what is constructed is ramp which is adjoining those survey numbers and no other ramp at all is constructed, any where near the Mukkam-Areacode portion of the Koilandi-Eadavanna road where the culvert is constructed raising the level of the road at the Mukkam – Areacode portion.

4. Additional 3rd respondent along with his application for impleadment filed as vide IA 1132/12 has produced copy of order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perunthalmanna in CMP 19/08 filed by the 3rd respondent and another against the father and brother of the present complainant and another directing them to remove the obstruction caused in construction of the ramp. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has observed in the order that the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Manjeri reported that the ramp was constructed to the land in Sy. Nos.225 and 226 as per request of the Keezhuparambu Grama Panchayat. Considering the contentions of the parties, the Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered to maintain the way in question, namely, the Thekinchuvadu Moombrakadavu Public Pathway which is stated to be ramp in question in Sy. Nos.225 and 226 of Block No.21 of WP(C) NO. 20355 OF 2014 5 Keezhuparambu village up to 100 meters from the beginning with 2.50 meters width with proper drainage. In view of the construction so effected by the P.W.D which was subject matter in the WP(C.)s filed before the Hon’ble High Court and CMP 19/08 (C.) before the sub Divisional Magistrate, Perunthalmanna and the admitted case that the ramp is already constructed, I find that the construction was effected as desired by the Panchayat and was constructed by the P.W.D as requested by the Pancayat and that the water-chal still remains without any considerable objection. There is no merit in this complaint and this complaint is dismissed.’’

4. Having regard to the materials produced before this Court and the contentions taken in the writ petition, I find that no ground is made out for interference with Ext.P10 order of the Up Lok Ayukta. The Lok Ayukta has properly considered all the grievances put forth by the petitioner and has considered whether there is any cause of initiating proceedings under the Lok Ayukta Act against respondent Nos.2 and 3. There is no ground made out to interfere with the order of the Lok Ayukta. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 20355 OF 2014 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20355/2014 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE KEEZHUPARAMBA VILLAGE OFFICER. COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.33034/2004 DTD.17.7.2007. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.20.9.2007 IN WPC NO.27973/2007. PCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.31.12.2007. COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AND ITS ANSWERS. COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE KEEZHUPARAMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS NO.55/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA. P9 : COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.5.2014 INCOMPLAINT NO.1537/2009A OF UPA LOK AYUKTA.