IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33998 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.JANAKI AMMA, KALLATTU HOUSE, KADAMERI, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN CHARGE, 220 KV, TC SUB DIVISION, KSEB, VADAKARA, ORKKATTERI.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2,3 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 & 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 33998 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent, whereby 110 KV line has been caused to be drawn through the property of the petitioner and several others, causing much loss and hardship, without any regard to the alternate route submitted by the petitioner and despite the feasibility expressed by the concerned Tahsildar as per Ext.R2(c) report, whereby it has been stated that the route as proposed by the KSEB was likely to cause severe loss and hardships to the people of the locality and further that, if the line was drawn through the other route as suggested, it will cause less hardship especially in view of the fact that it will pass only through paddy fields. 2. The KSEB intended to draw 110 KV power line to Orkkaterri Sub station, taking a deviation from the existing 110 KV line available between Kakkayam and Kanjirot drawn via Chekkittapara, Pattanippara, Kuttiadi and Nadapuram Sub stations. The KSEB intended to draw the line taking a deviation from Pattanippara to reach the Orkkaterri Sub station situated only 13 kms. away, causing much loss and hardship to the persons like petitioner, who had filed necessary complaint before the WP(C) No 33998/2009. 2 Board authorities. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment passed by this Court, the dispute raised by the petitioner was directed to be referred to the 1st respondent/ADM. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 objection before the 1st respondent also suggesting the alternate route as borne by Ext.P3. The proceedings before the 1st respondent were numbered as 'D2-40142/2008' wherein an enquiry report was submitted by the Tahsildar as borne by Ext.R2 (c). The case of the petitioner is that, the report submitted by the Tahsildar mostly justifies the contention put forth by the petitioners and as to the feasibility aspect, suggesting the drawal of the line through a different route going through the paddy fields; lest it should very much adversely affect the nearby inhabitants if the line were to be drawn through the route proposed by the Board. Considering the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the 1st respondent instructed the KSEB to suggest an alternate route (as referred to in the impugned order). Meanwhile, some others filed a complaint before the 1st respondent, whereby a 'new file' was opened by the 1st respondent giving number as 'D2-33579/2009' and presumably dancing to the tune of such persons, the first respondent without any regard to the previous proceedings, simply endorsed that the route proposed by the KSEB was the most feasible, thus ordering to draw the electric line through the very same route, i.e., taking deviation from Pattanippara to Orkattery, virtually ignoring Ext.R2(c) report submitted by Tahsildar which was originally accepted by the 1st respondent as WP(C) No 33998/2009. 3 admitted in Ext.P4 itself. The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P4, which hence is subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition. 3. The steps taken to draw the line in tune with Ext.P4 were intercepted by this Court, passing an interim order of 'status quo', which was being extended from time to time for enabling the respondents to file statement or counter affidavit, as the case may be. Despite granting several adjournments as above, no counter affidavit or statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. The respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit seeking to sustain Ext.P4 and contending that the original proposal made by the KSEB, as accepted by the 1st respondent vide Ext.P4, is the most feasible one. Detailed sketch showing the topography and location of the existing line, as well as the deviation intended from Pattanippara to Orkkaterri has been filed as Ext.R2(b). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order contains errors apparent on the face of the records in so far as the case of the petitioner, as directed to be referred vide Ext.P1 judgment, was numbered as 'D2-40142/08' as observed by the 1st respondent in the impugned order; whereas the subsequent objection/complaint preferred by somebody else was taken to the files and the file was given a separate number as 'D2-33579/2009', which led to the impugned order as borne by Ext.P4. The sequence of events particularly with regard to the points as suggested by the Tahsildar vide Ext.P2(c) have also been specifically noted in WP(C) No 33998/2009. 4 Ext.P4, further observing that in view of the said report, necessary direction was given to the KSEB for suggesting an alternate route. In other words, the report submitted by the Tahsildar stating that, if the line was drawn giving effect to the proposal made by the Board, it was to affect the inhabitants very adversely to a considerable extent stands accepted and it was in the said circumstance, the Board was directed to suggest some alternate route. Theres is no case for the respondent Board that, pursuant to the said direction, the Board has suggested an alternate route. Similarly, the Board does not have any case that the contents of Ext.R2(c) report submitted by the Tahsildar are wrong in any manner. There is also absolutely no explanation as to the missing of the original file or as to what happened to the proceedings bearing No. D2 40142/2008. The first respondent has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. Learned Government Pleader submits that absolutely no instructions have been received in this regard; particularly as to the contents of the original file or as to the subsequent developments pursuant to Ext. R2 (c) report submitted by the Tahsildar and the direction given by the first respondent himself to the KSEB to suggest an alternate route. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to Ext.R2(b) sketch produced by the KSEB themselves, submits that the said sketch itself will substantiate the case put forth by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits, with reference to Ext.P3 as well as Ext.R2 (b) sketch, that there is WP(C) No 33998/2009. 5 already an existing line from Kakkayam Power house, proceeding to Kanjirot via Chekkiad, Pattanippara and Nadapuram sub stations. If the line is drawn from Pattanippara to Orkkaterri, the present destination, it will have to cover an extent of 13 Km passing through the valuable properties of thickly populated area, which will adversely affect the properties of the persons concerned; whereas, if the line is drawn directly from Nadapuram sub station to Orkkaterri sub station, it will only be less than 8 kms and the actual cost will be much below 50% of the present cost . This aspect pointed out by the petitioner vide Ext.P2 objection with reference to Ext.P3 sketch now stands vindicated from the part of the Board by producing Ext.R2(b). 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the KSEB submits that the statement or counter affidavit holding that the present route proposed by the KSEB and ordered to be implemented vide Ext.P4 is more feasible than the route suggested by the petitioner, i.e., by taking deviation from Nadapuram to Orkkatteri. This appears to have been made without reference to the actual facts and figures, particularly with regard to the contents of Ext.R2(C) report of the Tahsildar or as to the cost of infrastructure involved. The respondent Board failed to justify the 'so called feasibility' of the route proposed by the KSEB, which was held as not acceptable in view of the Ext.R2(c) report of the Tahsildar, in turn persuading the 1st respondent to direct the KSEB to suggest alternate route, as observed in Ext.P4 order itself. WP(C) No 33998/2009. 6 The feasibility aspect or the comparative cost of the route suggested by the petitioner, i.e., by taking a deviation from Nadapuram sub station to Orkattery Sub station involving of 8 kms is not discussed anywhere in Ext.P4. Absolutely no explanation is offered from the part of the first respondent with regard to the subsequent developments, i.e., after giving directions to the KSEB, pursuant to Ext.R2(c) report of the Tahsildar and the non submission of any alternate route by the KSEB. Nothing is stated as to the original file bearing No. D2 40142/2008 as well. 6. As such, the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Ext.P4 is not correct or sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter with reference to Ext.P2 objection, Ext.P3 sketch, Ext.R2 (b) Sketch submitted by the Board, Ext.R2(C) report submitted by the Tahsildar, the contents of the File No. D2 40142/2008 and of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. This exercise shall be pursued and finalised, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc