IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 25701 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): S.SUBAIDA BEEVI, HIGH LAND, EVERGREEN ESTATE, KARAKKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHAIRMAN, K.S.E.B, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CHIEF TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.C.SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R1 ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 TO 7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 26535 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd November,2009 J U D G M E N T The Kerala State Electricity Board decided to construct a 220 KV Sub Station at Kattakkada in Trivandrum District. For this purpose, towers have to be erected and power lines have to be drawn for 30kms from Pothenkode to Kattakkada. The total project cost is Rs.112 crores. This is necessitated because presently part of the southern district and part of the Trivandrum City are fed through 110 KV line from Pothenkode to Kattakkada which is overloaded. Hence these parts are facing voltage problems and frequent interruption in power supply, which would also affect the pumping of water to the capital city from Aruvikkara. The project is intended for supplying power to the proposed prestigious Vizhinjam Port also. The survey of the line was carried out in 2003 and the competent authority approved the route after studying various alternatives and a route was selected which according to the Board would cause least inconvenience to all concerned. But the petitioners in these two writ petitions through whose properties also W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009 2 these lines would pass objected to the drawing of the lines. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Additional District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram who heard the petitioners in these two writ petitions separately and passed separate orders which are Ext.P5 in WPC No.26535 of 2009 and Ext.P6 in WPC No.25701/09 by which the objections raised by the petitioners were rejected and the Board was permitted to draw the electric lines through the route proposed by them. Both orders were passed on 28.2.2007. Petitioners have challenged those orders on 10.9.2009 and 18.9.2009 respectively, on the ground that the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners have not been properly considered by the Additional District Magistrate, who disposed of their objections by a non- speaking order. Petitioners therefore submit that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the Additional District Magistrate is liable to be directed to reconsider the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners. 2. The Board has filed a counter affidavit in which they would reiterate that the route proposed by them is the W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009 3 most suitable route and no change is called for in the same. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is true that the Additional District Magistrate had not given elaborate reasons to reject the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners. But it must be remembered that the Additional District Magistrate is not a legally trained person and he cannot be expected to write an order under 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act like a judgment. 4. In the above circumstances, I wanted the petitioners to satisfy me as to the suitability of their alternate routes. Admittedly, the petitioners have not chosen to conduct any survey of their own. The line runs into 30 kms. Even a slight change at one point would ultimately result in a very big change in the ultimate alignment at the destination point. Petitioners are only concerned with their own inconvenience. Petitioner in WPC No.25701/09 has vaguely alleged malafides. He has not chosen to implead any person against whom malafides are alleged, in his personal capacity and has not been able to provide any material in support of his contention of malafides. Petitioner in the other writ petition does not W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009 4 even allege malafides. It is settled law that this Court can interfere with orders passed under Sec. 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act only if the decision taken is perverse or the same is mala fide. In cases of such large projects, it is usual that some people would be slightly inconvenienced by the same which is not avoidable. That cannot be the sole reason for changing the alignment. If at this point of time, a resurvey is ordered to look into the alternate route suggested by the petitioners, it would delay the project itself indefinitely which would be against public interest. In any event, I do not find any perversity in the order of the District Magistrate so as to interfere on the same in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners and accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed. (S.SIRI JAGAN,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009 6