The Kerala High Court on Thursday declined to order any realignment of a bridge being constructed across the Bharathapuzha river and asked 'metro man' E Sreedharan to approach the State once more with his concerns regarding the allegedly unscientific alignment of the bridge [E Sreedharan v State of Kerala & ors].
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu explained that the Court lacked the technical expertise to directly intervene on the issue.
It observed that such matters require technical knowledge, including an understanding of the region’s topography, which the Court did not possess.
However, the Bench requested the State authorities to consider the grievances raised by Sreedharan, given his expertise and experience in such matters.
"It is not possible for us to assume expertise in this subject and issue a writ of mandamus to change the alignment of the bridge. However it's a matter which needs consideration, and considering the expertise and experience of the petitioner, that the authorities should consider his petition and his suggestions to be implemented feasible according to the respondents," the Court said.
Sreedharan is a Malayali engineer who is renowned for his contributions to the development of the Delhi Metro, on account of which he is popularly referred to by his moniker, "metro man."
In his petition before the High Court, Sreedharan had argued that the current alignment of the Thirunavaya-Thavanur bridge, being constructed across the Bharathapuzha, would divide a holy trinity of temples, namely - Vishnu Temple at Thirunavaya on the north bank, and the Shiva and Brahma Temples at Thavanur on the south bank.
His petition said that the present bridge plan is unscientific, in breach of principles of engineering and likely to disturb historical structures such as the samadhi (resting place) of freedom fighter K Kelappan, revered as 'Kerala Gandhi.'
He had raised concerns about the bridge’s impact on the area’s religious and cultural heritage and offered free technical assistance to the State to address such issues.
He had also mentioned in his petition that despite submitting a letter to the Chief Minister and PWD Minister in 2022, he received no response.
The Court today noted that Sreedharan had offered his technical assistance free of cost and was willing to appear before the authorities personally or through video conferencing to provide his suggestions.
The Court, therefore, requested the State authorities to review his suggestions, if the same was feasible.
The government pleader assured the Court that the petition would be placed before the Principal Secretary of the Public Works Department (PWD), who would examine Sreedharan’s proposals and decide if they could be implemented.
The Court proceeded to close Sreedharan's petition.
Sreedharan is represented by advocates Sajith Kumar V, Vivek AV, and Sreehari VS.
Advocate Resmitha R Chandran appeared for the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation.