IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26405 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. K.K.AUGUSTINE,AGED 62 YEARS,S/O.KURIAN KOCHUPARAKKAL, KAITHAPOYIL PO,VALLIYAD DESOM, PUTHUPPADY PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. A.O.SKARIA @ MATHUKUTTY, ASARICHIRAYIL VEEDU,KAITHAPOYIL PO,VALLIYAD DESOM, PUTHUPPADY PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. E.T.VARKEY,ELEVAKUNNEL HOUSE,RESIDING AT KAITHAPOYIL PO,VALLIYAD DESOM, PUTHUPPADY PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PRESIDENT OF POWER LINE PEEDITHA POURA SAMITHI, PUTHUPPADY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POWER,STATE OF KERALA SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES) CORPORATE OFFICE, SOUDAMINI, PLOT NO.2,SECTION 29 GUARGAAON, HARYANA. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY POWER AND ENERGY DEPARTMENT CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R3 R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) 28748/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) Nos. 26405 & 28748 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT These two writ petitions being connected, they are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the proposal to draw electric line across their properties. It is stated that in the meeting held on 23.11.2007 it was agreed that re-survey should be conducted for reducing the loss of the people. However, the third respondent, Power Grid Corporation, has decided to take up a particular alignment. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit explaining as to why the proposal, which according to the petitioners is much better, cannot be accepted. 4. I would think that it is not for this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to consider this matter. Learned counsel for the third respondent also brought to my notice Ext.R3(d) judgment of this court, wherein this court in a similar matter has taken note of the fact that the matter received the attention of the experts, which in turn came to be done in terms of the direction of this court. Accordingly, I decline jurisdiction and the writ petitions are dismissed. WPC.26405 & 28748/2008. 2 But I make it clear that this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners available in law. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb