IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17670 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KERALA VISWAKARMA SABHA,SAKHA NO.569, PARAKKADAVU P.O.,KURUMASSERY-683579,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DHINESH V.N., S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 40,VILAKKUPURATH HOSUE, PARAKKADAVU, PARAKKADAVU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR, SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR, SMT.K.L.SREEKALA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHALAKKUDY. 2. ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18653 OF 2010 AND WPC.NO.18007 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 17670, 18007 & 18653 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2010. J U D G M E N T The issue involved in these cases are with regard to the drawing of 33 KV lines, which is, stated to have been effected by the Board for solving the problem of shortage of power supply and better voltage facility to the public. When the line was about to be drawn, the nearby inhabitants raised objections which led to reference of the dispute to the Additional District Magistrate. After considering the proposal to draw the line as suggested by the Board and after hearing the objection, the Additional District Magistrate conducted a site inspection and heard the matter again. It was found that the alternate routes suggested by the objectors were not feasible and accordingly, the proposal suggested by the Board authorities was accepted and the line was permitted to be drawn as per the order dated 9.11.2009, which has been produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) 17670/2010. Similar orders have been subjected to challenge in the other two writ petitions also, which are produced as Exts.P6 in W.P.(C) 18007/2010 and Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) 18653/2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing WP(C) 17670/10 & CON. CASES 2 counsel appearing for the Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader for the Additional District Magistrate. 3. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 17670/2010 is that, originally, the proposal as made by the Board was found as the most feasible one and that the objections were considered and site inspection was also conducted by the Additional District Magistrate in this regard. However, after holding that the alternate routes suggested by the objectors were not feasible, as per letter No. DB 15B/08-09/248 dated 6.10.2009, a new proposal was submitted by the Board informing that the 'new proposal' will have the less inconvenience to the respondents, than the original proposal. The route proposed in the new proposal is by making slight changes in the route proposed by the Board and found as the most feasible one. This was accepted by Ext.P3 order which is impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the original route as proposed by the Electricity Board and the modification was made behind the petitioner and that no proper appreciation of the actual facts and figures is there in Ext.P3, while passing the same. 4. With regard to the contention raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 18007/2010, it is his case that he had earlier approached this Court after WP(C) 17670/10 & CON. CASES 3 filing a statement of objection, which, unfortunately, was preferred before the wrong authority and subsequently, he filed Ext.P5 statement of objections before the concerned respondent, ie. the first respondent, on 12.5.2010. His grievance was also caused to be redressed by virtue of Ext.P5(a) judgment dated 24.5.2010 in W.P.(C) 14144/2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the objection raised by him in Ext.P5 has never been considered by the first respondent, who passed Ext.P6 order, which is under challenge. 5. The learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board vehemently opposed the prayers raised in the said writ petition (WP(C) 18007/2010) stating that Ext.P5 statement of objection was never submitted by the petitioner and absolutely no proof was produced in this regard. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that the records did not reveal that any such objection was preferred by the petitioner at any point of time. The records were also made available before this Court in this regard. However, petitioner has got a contention that he has preferred Ext.P7 representation dated 24.6.2010 before the first respondent pointing out the sequence of events and a copy of the same is produced along with I.A. No. 9391/2010. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has forwarded the same to the concerned authority ie. the WP(C) 17670/10 & CON. CASES 4 second respondent Board, for consideration and further steps. The submission made by the petitioner in this regard is strongly refuted by the standing counsel as well as the Government Pleader for the respondents, stating that such a representation is still to be preferred by the petitioner and that the respondents have not received the same. 6. With regard to the prayers of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 18653/2010, petitioners have got a case that their contentions were not considered when the changed proposal was accepted causing irreparable hardship for the enjoyment of their properties. Reliance is also placed on the sketch produced by the respondent - Board, marked as Ext.R3(a), whereby a post is sought to be implanted almost touching the property of the petitioners, which made them to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief. 7. Learned standing counsel placed the relevant files before this Court and also produced a copy of the 'letter dated 6.10.2009' referred to in Ext.P3 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate in W.P.(C) 17670/2010. The said letter shows that, after the site inspection and hearing held by the Additional District Magistrate, the route originally proposed by the Board was slightly deviated reportedly in the better interest of all concerned by changing the route from ABCDEFGH to WP(C) 17670/10 & CON. CASES 5 AB1C1DE1FG1H (Ext. R3(a) sketch in W.P.(C) 18653/2010). Learned standing counsel submits that the deviation as above was made only to cause the least inconvenience to the nearby inhabitants, as well as the general public and to make it more feasible in all respects. 8. Even though the bona fides on the part of the authorities of the Board need not be doubted, the fact remains that, by changing the point from C to C1, it is to touch/about to touch the property of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 18653/2010. It is also pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the Board that the request made by the petitioners to plant the post on the side of the road is not feasible for the reason that the road is only having a width of 'three metres', unlike the PWD road, which is having a width of 8 metres. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, in view of the particular nature of the posts, called 'lattices' with four legs, it is not possible or feasible to have it planted on the side of the road having just 'three metres' width, which, otherwise will cause hindrance to the traffic and the general public. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the original proposal causing the line to be drawn across the property of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 17670/2010 has been dropped subsequently, as it has to be drawn along the boundary of the petitioner, which has also been in good faith and better interest of all concerned. WP(C) 17670/10 & CON. CASES 6 9. Though this Court does not find any reason to doubt the genuineness or bona fides of the Board authorities; since the matter has to be finalisied in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, it has to be held that the matter requires to be considered by virtue of the changed circumstances. True, when the original proposal was submitted by the Board, site inspection was conducted and the proposals submitted by the objectors were also considered by the Additional District Magistrate. It is also stated that the alternate route is not feasible. Admittedly, the line was caused to be changed, though the extent of modification is stated as 'slight'. The net result is that the line from A to H stands modified atleast to some extent at different points. The fact remains that the petitioners before this Court did not get an opportunity to raise their objection in respect of the so called 'slight change', [nor the Additional District Magistrate did find it fit and proper to consider the matter after ascertaining whether the objectors had any genuine grievance. As such, the matter requires to be re-examined with proper application of mind. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the Additional District Magistrate is directed to pass fresh orders after conducting a site inspection and after giving an opportunity of being heard to all concerned including the petitioners in these writ petitions. The WP(C) 17670/10 & CON. CASES 7 proceeding shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Additional District Magistrate shall also consider the objections stated as preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 18007/2010, taking Ext.P5 produced along with the writ petition as a valid copy of such objections. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-