Court mandates timely consideration of public input in municipal planning.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the respondents 2 and 4 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibits P3 and P4 representations submitted by the petitioners and other residents of the locality as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a time frame to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court, before Pottankavu-Nellikkad road is widened as per Exhibit P2 report;

ii. a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the respondents to stop forthwith all steps for widening the Pottankavu-Nellikkad road as per Exhibit P2 report till Exhibits P3 and P4 representations submitted by the petitioners and other residents of the locality are disposed of;

iii. such other writ or direction as is prayed for pendente lite by the petitioner and as is deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court.

(SIC)

2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P3 within a time frame. The counsel also submitted that there may be an order of status quo till consideration of Ext.P3.

3. Even though notice is issued to the 4^th respondent, there is no appearance.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the prayer of the petitioner can be allowed.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The 4^th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other affected parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. Till then, status quo as on today, as far as the road widening is concerned, shall be maintained.

sd/-