IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20639 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIJI JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KOONAMMAKKAL HOUSE, MANNAMKANDAM P.O. ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 666. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI - 685 576. 4. VIYYAT POWER PVT.LTD., DEEPTHI NAGAR, ADIMALY, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, M.S.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.MAHESWARA KAIMAL, RESIDING AT MEDAYIL HOUSE, VENGALLOOR P.O. THODUPUZHA - 685 584. ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20639 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the steps being taken by the concerned respondents to draw the electric lines through the property of the petitioner in connection with the transmission of power, i.e., sought to be diverted by the 4th respondent, who has been given permission from the Government for establishing 'Mini hydel project' in the area. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the action being pursued by the respondents is without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and hence contrary to the relevant provisions of the statute. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that, the permission given by the Government in favour of the 4th respondent is for a period of 30 years; that requisite notification was published in the Gazette much ago; besides publication of the same in the local dailies. It is stated that absolutely no objection whatsoever was raised by the petitioner at any point of time, even inspite of a registered notice sent to him; who has come forward with the present objection only to stall the project. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that, the line is passing through the property of nearly 14 different owners and is 2 WP(C) No. 20639/2010 almost on the stage of completion. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that, alignment of the line has already been approved by the KSEB (TTCC), in furtherance to various notifications and proceedings and this being the position, the alignment is not liable to be challenged in any manner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, going by the contents of the counter affidavit, the approval of the line was on 23.06.2010; while Ext.P4 letter issued by the KSEB to the petitioner speaks about the compensation already fixed and removal of the trees. This being the position, finalization of the proceedings stated as made is not correct or proper and that the statement of objections raised by the petitioner is liable to be considered and entertained by the statutory authority. 6. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that, this involves disputed questions of fact, which requires to be adjudicated by the competent authority, who is none other than the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the concerned respondent shall refer the dispute to the 3rd respondent forthwith, at any rate, within two weeks; on receipt of which, the matter shall be considered and finalized by the 3rd respondent in accordance with law, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner and others concerned. This shall be done as expeditiously as 3 WP(C) No. 20639/2010 possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of the reference. Status-quo shall be maintained with regard to the drawing of the line through the property of the petitioner till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc