IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5472 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MATHAI, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 63 YEARS, THANIMOLLATH IKKARAKUDYIL (H) ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SUDHEER, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 34 YEARS, MOLEKUDI (H), ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. ALIAS, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 90 YEARS, IKKARAKUDYIL (H), ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SR II 32 RACE COURSE ROAD, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 001. 4. CHIEF MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, CHANDINI PLOT NO.190-B, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 020. 5. THE THAHASILDAR , KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 5472 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th February , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are aggrieved of the steps being pursued at the instance of the third and 4th respondents to draw high voltage electric line for the Cochin-Trissur Sector, proceeding through the property of the petitioners causing irreparable loss, injury and hardship to them. According to the petitioners, they have suggested an alternate route, which, will not cause any undue loss and hardship to the people of the locality including the petitioners. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the feasibility aspect also stands in favour of the alternate route proposed by the petitioners and that they have already raised Ext.P5 objection before the District Collector/second respondent . The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Ext.P1 rough sketch and the verdict passed by this Court under similar W.P.(C) No. 5472 OF 2010 2 circumstances vide Ext.P6 judgment, whereby the matter was caused to be considered by the District Collector/competent authority under the Statute. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 and also the learned Government Pleader, who entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 5. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submits that there is absolutely no objection for the said respondents in causing the matter to be heard and finalised by the second respondent/competent authority and the only requirement is that, it might be caused to be done at the earliest in view of urgent requirement, particularly to complete the project in a time bound manner. 5. After hearing both the sides, the second respondent/competent authority is directed to consider the grievances projected by the petitioner vide Ext. P5, as to the feasibility of the alternate route suggested by them, with reference to Ext. P1 sketch and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of W.P.(C) No. 5472 OF 2010 3 hearing to the petitioners and all others concerned. The matter shall be finalised as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that till the matter is finalised as above, the steps to draw the line shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk