IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33962 of 2010(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- JOSE.P.ANTONY, PELLISSERY HOUSE, AMMADOM.P.O., THRISSUR REP. BY HIS P/A. HOLDER SRI.SUNNY.P.P. AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. PAULOSE, PENGIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CONVENT ROAD, CHALAKKUDY THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, 'CHANDINI', PLOT NO.190-B, MAVELIPURAM COLONY.P.O., KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASST. ENGINEER, M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., KAKKAND, KOCHI-30. 3. THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.33962 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 18th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is an absolute owner of a small piece of land over which respondents 1 and 2 sought to draw a 400 KV Transmission line. Aggrieved by the proposed route the petitioner raised objections before the authorities as per Ext.P2. Taking note of the objections, the first respondent filed a petition before the third respondent for removing the said resistance and obstructions. In fact, the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.13573 of 2010 apprehending that Ext.P2 would not be referred to the 3rd respondent and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P3. As per Ext.P3, a direction was given to the second respondent to forward the objections to the third respondent and in turn directing the third respondent to consider the objections in accordance with law and pass orders thereon. It is in purported compliance of Ext.P3 that Ext.P1 impugned order has been passed by the third respondent. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order would reveal that the principles of natural justice was not followed while passing the said order. In Ext.P1 a reference has been made about a technical feasibility report regarding the alternate route suggested by the respondents. According to the petitioner, copy of WP(C).No.33962/2010 2 the same was not furnished to him and he was not afforded with an opportunity to raise his contentions after perusing the same and therefore, it would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. The learned standing counsel submitted that though a technical feasibility report has been called for, a scrutiny of Ext.P1 would reveal that the same was not actually relied on for the purpose of passing Ext.P1. In fact, a scanning of the same would reveal that it was an order passed solely based on the site inspection and examination of the records submitted by the parties. Therefore, according to the learned standing counsel there is no basis for the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice. Page No.3 of Ext.P1 would reveal that the third respondent has actually adverted to the remarks in the technical feasibility report. In the said circumstances, the decision of this Court in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1988 (2) KLT 248) assumes relevance. It was held that the District Magistrate who is invested with the power to pass orders affecting the property rights of a person is bound to give such person an opportunity of being heard before he proceeds to act on some materials adverse to the cause he wanted to WP(C).No.33962/2010 3 espouse before that authority. Indisputably, in this case details collected by way of technical feasibility report were not made known to the petitioner and that he was not afforded with an opportunity to explain the adverse effect and impact of the further details. That apart there is no consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P1. As already noticed hereinbefore, the third respondent has passed Ext.P1 order in fact, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P3. When this Court directed an authority, in this case the third respondent, to consider the objections, the said authority is bound to consider the same with application of mind. There cannot be any doubt that application of mind can be reflected only through the discussion on the matter in issue and the reasons for the conclusions. Absence of such elements would suggest non-application of mind. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that apart from narration of the rival contentions there is no consideration at all of the objections raised by the petitioner. That apart the third respondent has relied on a decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.3278 of 2010 to pass the impugned order. It is fairly a settled position that in a matter where public interest is involved, private interest has to give way to the public interest. However, at the same time, in a matter where the right of enjoyment of a property of a person is likely to be affected by an order to his detriment the authority who is exercising the power has a duty to apply its mind and then to pass the order sagaciously. I am of the WP(C).No.33962/2010 4 view that Ext.P1 cannot be sustained at all. The matter requires a reconsideration. Learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that in view of the public interest involved in this matter an expeditious consideration is essential. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- To enable the third respondent to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and with application of mind, Ext.P1 is set aside. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to consider the objections of the petitioner as directed by this Court, earlier, in Ext.P3 and to take a decision with application of mind. The third respondent shall furnish a copy of the technical feasibility report referred to in Ext.P1 order to the petitioner and offer an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his objections thereon. Needless to say that before passing orders afresh the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 shall be afforded with an opportunity of being heard and fresh orders shall be passed in terms of the above directions expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To expedite the matter it will be open to the parties to produce a copy of this judgment before the third respondent. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS