IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30303 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.V.BIJU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.P.VISWANADHAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KUNDARA-691501, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. K.BABURAJAN MR. SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.R.JOSE PRAKASH, THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (REPRESENTED BY & THROUGH) THE CHAIRMAN, KSEB, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION & CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, KSEB, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, KOTTARAKARA. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, TRANSMISSION & CONSTRUCTION SUB DIVISION AYATHIL SUB STATION, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 TO R4 BY MR. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 30303 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of November 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of a property through which the respondents 2 to 4 proposes to draw a 110 KV transmission line. Since the petitioner objected to the drawing of the lines, the respondents 2 to 4 approached the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam, who passed Ext.P6 order permitting the respondents 2 to 4 to draw the line through the petitioner's property as proposed by them. Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order on the ground that the line could have been drawn avoiding the petitioner's property through paddy lands. Instead the line has been drawn through the petitioner's property only to avoid the property of an Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, is the allegation of the petitioner. He submits that when an alternate route suggested by the petitioner is available, there ware absolutely no reason for the respondents to decide to draw the line over the petitioner's property wherein a two storied building which houses the petitioner and his family is situate. Petitioner further points out that although this alternate route W.P.(C). No. 30303 OF 2009 2 was specifically suggested by the petitioner in Ext.P5, there is absolutely no consideration of the same in Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order only states that the line is to be drawn only keeping statutory clearance from the petitioner's building. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs. (a) This Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and quash and set aside the impugned order K.Dis.20434/09/M.4 dated 24.10.2009 (Exh.P6). (b) This Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to stop all drawal of the transmission lines and putting the same in operation in whatsoever manner forthwith. (c) This Hon'ble High Court be further pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reconstruct the tower No.2 in line with the tower No.1 & 3 so that the transmission line passes over the PWD road as shown in P1 Sketch, red ink dotted line, by dismantling the Tower 2 and connections (from Tower 2 to Tower 1) as presently connected. (d) This Hon'ble High Court be further pleased to pass such other and further W.P.(C). No. 30303 OF 2009 3 reliefs as deemed fit under the given facts and circumstances. 2. Respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit controverting the contentions. According to respondents 2 to 4, there is no malafides as alleged by the petitioner. They would submit that the line is to be drawn crossing a railway line. As per rules of the railways, when electricity lines are to cross extra high tension lines, such crossing shall only be at an angle of 90 degrees to the railway line with an allowance of +/- 15 degrees. To comply with that rule, the line has to be drawn over the petitioners building is the contention raised. The learned Standing Counsel points out that in Ext.P2 counter affidavit filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate the only contention is regarding the statutory clearance and no contention of malafides and alternate route have been raised in the same. It is only in the submission made in the petition for rehearing the matter that such contentions were raised. According to the Standing Counsel for the Board, there is no bonafides in the new contentions raised by the petitioner, which is evident from the fact that Ext.P2 objections filed by the petitioner did not contain any such grounds. W.P.(C). No. 30303 OF 2009 4 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It may be true that the petitioner raised these contentions only in Ext.P5. Still those contentions were raised before the District Magistrate passed the orders. Therefore, going by the decision of this Court in Valsamma Thomas Vs. Additional District Magistrate (1997(2) KLT 979), the Additional District Magistrate had the duty to consider all the contentions and to enter findings in respect thereof. From Ext.P6, it is very clear that the Additional District Magistrate has not given any reasons to reject the contention of the petitioner in Ext.P5. For that reason alone, Ext.P6 is liable to be quashed. I do so. The Additional District Magistrate, Kollam is directed to reconsider the entire matter in the light of the contentions of the parties afresh and pass a reasoned order considering all the contentions of the parties. Fresh orders shall be passed as expeditiously as early as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Status quo as on today shall be maintained. 4. Since the petitioner has not chosen to make the Additional District Magistrate as a party to the writ petition, a W.P.(C). No. 30303 OF 2009 5 copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Additional District Magistrate by the Registry. A copy of the same shall also be issued to the learned Government Pleader. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (S. SIRI JAGAN) JUDGE kkms/