IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3116 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.A. JOSE, S/O. LATE ANTONY, KEKKARIKKATTU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR POST, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. 2. K.V. THOMAS, S/O. K.J. VARGHESE, KAPPIYIL HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR KARA AND POST, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, TRANSMISSION DIVION, POOVANTHURUTHU POST, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANIMALA VILLAGE, MANIMALA POST, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3116 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is mainly against the decision of the respondents to construct a sub station in 48 cents of land situated in Survey No.3/7 of Manimala Village. 2. It would appear that in order to provide power supply to Manimala-Vellavoor drinking water project, it has been decided by the respondents to set up a sub station in Manimala. According to the petitioners, the decision to locate the sub station in the above plot is illegal mainly for the reason that the Village Officer had objected to the proposal and that the Vellavoor Panchayat had by Ext.P7 resolution offered one acre of land free of cost. It is stated that ignouring the objection raised and also without accepting the free offer made by the Vellavoor Panchayat, the respondents have decided to take the present plot mainly on the influence of the local MLA. 3. The learned standing counsel for the KSEB obtained instructions in the matter. According to him, to meet the power WP(C) No.3116/2009 -2- requirement of the Manimala-Vellavoor drinking water project, they had to set up a sub station, which is to be fed from the Erumeli sub station. It is stated that 11 sites including the one offered by the Panchayat were inspected and out of the 11, being the most suitable one, the present location was chosen by the Board. It is stated that the present site was Government land and on payment of the market value, on the orders of the Government, the land was assigned to the respondents. It is stated that they have already started construction also. 4. Essentially, the grievance is regarding the location of the sub station. According to the respondents, they had 11 choices and out of the 11, the best was chosen by them. In the matter of choice of a suitable location for setting up of a sub station, in my view, if the respondents have decided on a particular plot, unless there is strong material to suggest that the said decision is vitiated by arbitrariness or malafides, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same. There is nothing except a vague suggestion that the plot has been chosen on the influence of the MLA, there is absolutely nothing to conclude any malafides or WP(C) No.3116/2009 -3- arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. 5. As already noticed, this plot is found to be the most suitable location, particularly it being closer to Erumeli sub station, where from power is to be fed. Therefore, in the absence of any such material, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the decision taken by the respondents. This writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg