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. 1401 of 2011(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GOMATHIAMMA, KARANTHANATH HOUSE, PANACHEPALLI P.O., KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. AKHIL N.PILLAI, VAYAMBOOR HOUSE, PANACHEPALLI P.O., KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. V.G.GOPINATHA PILLAI, VAYAMBOOR HOUSE, PANACHEPALLI P.O., KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, CHANDAPLAKKAL VEEDU, PANACHEPALLI P.O., KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. ANEESH D., PALAKKAL VEEDU, PANACHEPALLI P.O., KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. RATHEESH D., PALAKKAL VEEDU, PANACHEPALLI P.O., KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. V.G.RAJKUMAR, VAYAMBOOR HOUSE, PANACHEPALLI P.O., KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. DEPUTY CHEIF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, K.S.E.B.POOVANTHURUTH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686001. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 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.1401 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the fourth respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to consider Ext.P6 report and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court, before finally demarcating the route through which the Kanjirapally-Erumely 110 KV electricity line is to be drawn. In Ext.P6, the petitioners have objected to the proposal to draw a high tension line through their lands. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission-hearing on 14.1.2011, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents were directed to get instructions. This Court also directed that till today, the status quo shall be maintained. 3. Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board has filed a statement dated 17.1.2011 and produced along with it a copy of the order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the District Collector, Kottayam on a petition filed by the Board under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with section 164 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. It is stated therein that the objections raised by the petitioners and others to the W.P.(C) No.1401 of 2011 2 proposed drawing of the electricity line was considered by the District Collector, Kottayam and the route was approved by Annexure-I order dated 15.9.2009. It is also stated that the petitioners have not challenged the said order, though two other objectors have filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the said order. The learned standing counsel further submitted that as the petitioners have not challenged the earlier order passed by the District Collector, whereby their objections have been considered and over ruled, they cannot seek a fresh consideration of their objections by the District Collector. 4. Annexure-I order dated 15.9.2009 issued by the District Collector, Kottayam discloses that the objections raised by the petitioners to the proposal to draw a high tension line through their lands were considered and over ruled, and the District Collector has permitted the Board to draw the line after avoiding Kanakappalam colony. The documents accompanying Annexure-I order disclose that the objections raised by the petitioners were considered. As a matter of fact, they were represented by counsel before the District Collector. The petitioners have admittedly not challenged Annexure-I order dated 15.9.2009. More than one year and 4 months have passed after Annexure-I order was passed. In such circumstances, as the W.P.(C) No.1401 of 2011 3 objections raised by the petitioners were once considered and over ruled, I find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The petitioners have also suppressed the fact that the District Collector had earlier considered their objections. The writ petition therefore is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts also. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.