IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32527 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU P.THOAMAS, MURICKANAINACKAL HOUSE,KANGAZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANASSERRY 4. THE TAHSILDAR, (LAND ACQUISITION) GENERAL POWERGRID TRANSMISSION LINE, PATHANAMTHIATTA. 5. THE POERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD SOUTHERN REGIONAL POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM REGIONAL HEAD QUARTERS III,RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001,REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, 6. THE CHIEF MANAGER, POERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, CHANDINI, PLOT NO.190 B, MAVELIPURAM COLONOY, KAKKANADU P.O.,KOCHI-682030 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R5 & 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32527 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the sixth respondent to comply with the direction issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam in Ext.P4 letter, before taking steps to draw the electricity line through his property. Shorn off details, the grievance voiced by the petitioner is that even before the feasibility of an alternate route is explored pursuant to the directions issued by the Additional District Magistrate in Ext.P4 letter, respondents 3 to 6 are trying to draw the electricity line through his lands. 2. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 submitted that on account of obstruction caused by the land owners, the directions issued by the learned Additional District Magistrate in Ext.P4 letter could not be complied with. The learned counsel further submitted that in such circumstances, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the District Collector, Kottayam and the Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam, to ensure that respondents 5 and 6 are in a position to comply with Ext.P4 letter. 3. It is evident from the materials on record that the Additional District Magistrate has directed respondents 5 and 6 to W.P.(C) No.32527 of 2010 2 explore the feasibility of drawing the line through an alternate route suggested by the people residing in the locality. If respondents 5 and 6 are facing any problem in carrying out the directions issued by the Additional District Magistrate, their remedy is to move the Additional District Magistrate seeking police protection or to move this Court. It is stated that respondents 5 and 6 have already move the District Collector and the Additional District Magistrate by filing Exts.R5(1) and R5(2) representations. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to enquire into the complaint made by respondents 5 and 6 in Exts.R5(1) and R5(2) representations and to facilitate the survey undertaken by them, if necessary, by granting adequate police protection. The Additional District Magistrate shall before taking a final decision in the matter issue notice to the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6 and also to the other objectors, and shall take a final decision in the matter within one week from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgent before them. The Additional District Magistrate shall after the report W.P.(C) No.32527 of 2010 3 of survey is filed pass final orders in the matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the report of survey. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.