IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24686 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.MUSTHAFA, S/O.ALAVI HAJI, KALANGADAN HOUSE, MOONNIYOOR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, KSEB, EDARIKODE POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 5. THE PRESIDENT, MOONNIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MOONNIYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. N.M.HASSANKUTTY HAJI, S/O.KUNHEEN, PALAIKKATHODI HOUSE, CHONARIKADAVU, MOONNIYOOR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM ADVS. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 MR.JAI GEORGE FOR R5 MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR MR.K.VINOD CHANDRAN FOR R6 MR HARISH R. MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 24826 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24686 of 2009(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. E3-44261/07 DATED 30.3.2009 ISSUED BY DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. Ext.P2 - TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 15.4.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Ext.P3 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2009 IN WP(C) NO. 13032 OF 2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. Ext.P4 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. E3-21751/09 DATED 24.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Ext.P5 - TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 23.07.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Ext.P6 - TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Ext.P7 - TRUE COPY OF SKETCH PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB CHELARI RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Ext.R6(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 1124 OF 2007, DATED 10.01.2007. Ext.R6(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY ASST. ENGINEER 110 KV SUB STATION, KSEB, CHELARI. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) Nos. 24686 & 24826 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is the third round of litigation in respect of drawing of an electricity line. Several persons objected to drawing of the line as originally proposed by the 2nd respondent. The matter came up before the District Magistrate, Malappuram, who originally passed Ext.P1 order dated 30.3.2009 which was stated to be on the basis of a report of a sub committee constituted for the purpose of suggesting a feasible route with least inconvenience to all. The petitioner herein earlier approached this court by filing W.P(C) No. 13032 of 2009 challenging Ext.P1. This court, by Ext.P3 judgment set aside Ext.P1 order of the District Magistrate and also directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter after hearing all parties concerned. It appears that subsequently the sub committee again meet to discuss the matter to suggest a feasible route. Thereafter Ext.P4 order was passed wherein the District Magistrate allowed the 2nd petitioner to draw electric line as per a new sketch prepared by the 2nd respondent allegedly in accordance with suggestions of W.P(C) Nos. 24686 & 24826 of 2009 -2- the sub committee. The petitioner now submits that what has been originally suggested is as per Ext.P5, wherein a deviation was contemplated to the original route itself and not an altogether different route as to proposed in the present sketch prepared by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also alleges that the present sketch prepared is not in accordance with the decision of the sub committee. In view of the submissions made with regard to the decision of the sub committee in the matter, I directed the standing counsel for the board to make available the decision of the sub committee. Today he submits that there is no written report of the sub committee as such. Of course, a minutes of the meeting of the sub committee is available, which states only that a meeting of the sub committee was convened. It does not state as to what was the discussion in the meeting or what was the ultimate decision. The sub committee consisted of the Tahasildar, the Assistant Executive Engineer, the Village Officer and the President and Vice-president of the Munniyur Grama Panchayat. Now the 5th respondent who is the convener of the sub committee has filed a counter affidavit stating that the sketch produced by the 2nd respondent and accepted by the W.P(C) Nos. 24686 & 24826 of 2009 -3- District Magistrate is not as per the suggestions made by the sub committee. According to him, what the sub committee has proposed is a slight deviation from the original route proposed by the 2nd respondent by placing an additional post in the same route. He also categorically states that the present route suggested by the 2nd respondent and accepted by the District Magistrate as per Ext.R6(b) is not a feasible route and the same is done only at the instance of the 6th respondent. The counsel for the 6th respondent would dispute the contention of the petitioner as well as that of the 5th respondent. According to him, the present route suggested as per Ext.R6(b) is route suggested by the sub committee, which only has been approved by the District Magistrate. The 6th respondent also points out that in the minutes of the meeting of the sub committee, there is a specific reference to a decision of the sub committee. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. Although Ext.P4 order mentions a decision of the sub committee formed by the District Magistrate that decision is not available in writing. The Convener of the committee has come on record to say that Ext.R6(b) sketch has not been prepared in W.P(C) Nos. 24686 & 24826 of 2009 -4- accordance with suggestions of the committee. There is nothing in writing available either before the District Magistrate or before this Court to verify what was the decision of the sub committee in so far as admittedly that decision has not been put in writing. In so far as Ext.P4 order is stated to be based on that decision, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained, especially because of the conflicting views by various persons in respect of sub committee decision. 4. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that District Magistrate should reconsider the matter in the best way possible either by directing the sub committee to give a decision in writing before him or by ascertaining the most feasible route, the best way the District Magistrate can do. Ext.P4 is therefore quashed and the District Magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all parties concerned, including parties, who may be affected by the proposed routes who were not parties to the proceedings before the District Magistrate while passing the earlier orders. Fresh decision shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this W.P(C) Nos. 24686 & 24826 of 2009 -5- judgment. 5. In view of the decision in W.P(C) No. 24686 of 2009, it is not necessary to pass a separate judgment in W.P(C) No. 24826 of 2009. Accordingly, the same is also disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Magistrate and state their objections while the District Magistrate considers the matter afresh. The District Magistrate shall issue notices to the petitioners in this writ petition also while considering the matter afresh. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs