IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3394 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. LEELAMMA JOSEPH, PERUMANNIL HOUSE POOVARANI P.O. 2. VIMALA FRANCIS PERUMANNIL HOUSE POOVARANI P.O. 3. MARYKKUTTY SEBASTIAN MATTAPPALLYIL HOUSE, POOVARANI P.O. 4. ABRAHAM MATHEW MOLOPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOVARANI.P.O. 5. JOSE MATHEW MOLOPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOVARANI.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY THE SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, POVVANTHURUTHU, KOTTAYAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB TRANSMISSION DIVISION, POOVANTHURUTHY,KOTTAYAM. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB SUB STATION SUB DIVISION, KAROOR, PALA,KOTTAYAM. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 6. M.J.VARGHESE, MATTEL HOUSE POOVARANI P.O.,PALA, KOTTAYAM. WPC No.3394/2009 -2- 7. D.C. GOPINATH 'DWARAKA' POOVARANI PO, PALA, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R4 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3394/2009: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1-A PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSAL LAYING DOWN OF 33 KV LINE. EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20-1-2007 INTIMATING THE OPPOSITION OF THE PETITIONERS IN LAYING DOWN THE NEW 33 KV LINE THROUGH THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P3-A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.2.2007 IN WPC 4021/2007 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P4-A PHOTOCPY OF THE DETAILS ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB STATION SUB DIVISION PALA DATED 16.4.2008. EXT.P5-A PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT-ADM, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P6-A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADM, DATED 12.12.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6A-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 4TH RESPODNENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R6B-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 3394 of 2009-D ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners challenge Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is an order of the Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam granting permission to draw 33 KV line along the existing route. According to the petitioner, petitioner had suggested that 33 KV line can be drawn through Pala-Ponkunnam road. The Additional District Magistrate stated that at the time of inspection residents strongly opposed the proposal and stated that it will be a threat to their life. They also stated that they will move a strike against the proposal and then the proposal was forwarded to the Assistant Executive Engineer for remarks. Thereupon the Assistant Executive Engineer suggested the existing route (11 KV route) and finding it to be more feasible permission is granted. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing standing counsel for the KSEB, learned Government Pleader and also learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 6. According to the petitioners, the order is without considering the fact that if the line is drawn as WPC No. 3394/2009 -2- suggested there will be lesser length and less expense. Learned counsel also relies on a Division Bench decision of this court in Valsamma Thomas Vs. Additional District Magistrate (1997 (2) KLT 979). Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that respondents 6 and 7 have no locus standi in the matter as the proposed line is to draw along the public road. It is for the petitioners to raise all the contentions before the authority. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent would submit that actually permission is not required. It is open to the 6th respondent to contend that no further permission is required. 3. I feel that the entire matter is to be considered. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed. In order to have an early decision in the matter as it relates to drawing of 33 KV line, the 5th respondent will take up the matter and decide the issue with notice to the parties within a period of six weeks. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS