IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25293 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. K.S.JOSEPH, KARIMPANAL HOUSE, VIZHIKATHODE P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. DONY SEBASTIAN, KARIPPAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SHAJAHAN.K.H., PALAKAKKAVU, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. ANSALA SHAJAHAN, DO. DO. DO. 5. DENNIS JOY, PEEDIECKAL HOUSE, KULAPPURAM, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. DAVIS JOY, DO. HOUSE, DO. DO. 7. K.S.THOMAS, KARIMPANAL HOUSE, VIZHIKATHODE P.O., KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. ANITHA THOMAS, DO. HOUSE, DO. DO. 9. JOHN JOSEPH, EDATHINAKKATTU HOUSE, MANNARAKKAYAM P.O., CHIRAKKADAVU, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 10. SHAJI MATHEW, THAKADIYIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVU EAST, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 11. V.M.MATHEW, VELLAPANNIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 12. MARIAMMA MATHEW, DO. HOUSE, DO. DO. 13. THOMAS NICHOLAS, KARIMPANAL HOUSE, VIZHIKKATHODE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 25293 of 2009(F) -2- 14. JOSEPH NICHOLAS, DO. HOUSE, D. DO. 15. K.S.SEBASTIAN, KARIMPANAL HOUSE, VIZHIKKATHODU, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 16. ELIZABETH ALEXANDER, DO. HOUSE, DO. DO. 17. A.J.THOMAS, ARUVIYIL HOUSE, KODAKACHIRA, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 18. HANIBALL DOMINIC, KARIMPPAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 19. BENOY CYRIAC, NJAVALLY HOUSE, PODIMATTOM, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DEPUTY CHEIF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, K.S.E.B., POOVANTHURUTHU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. SUB STATION, SUB DIVISION, KANAPPALAM, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 66 K.V.SUB STATION, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25293 of 2009(F) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2007 IN W.P(C) NO. 37013/2007. EXT.P2 - PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS/ ORDER NO. M136263/07/K.DIS DATED 14.8.2008 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.10.2008 IN W.P(C) NO. 27725 OF 2008. EXT.P4 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ ORDER NO. M1-43927/08 K.DIS DATED 28.2.2009 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.4.2009 IN W.P(C) NO. 11372/09/ EXT.P6 - PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.A1. 18653/09 DATED 30.7.2009 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - PHOTOCOPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 11.7.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS. EXT.P8 - PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION DATED 12.8.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT BY P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS. EXT.P9 - PHOTOCOPY OF ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE ROUTES. EXT.P10 - PHOTOCOPY OF WRITTEN REQUEST NO. DB/MLY-LINE/07-08/543 DATED 14.12.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB STATION SUB DIVISION, PALA. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 25293 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are owners of properties through which the 1st respondent proposes to draw a 110 K.V electric line at Kanakappalam sub station near Erumely. Petitioners have raised objections to the proposed route through which the line is proposed to be drawn by the Electricity Board. A series of writ petitions have been filed in this regard which ultimately resulted in Ext.P5 judgment wherein this court had directed the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing all parties concerned. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were given opportunity of being heard. During the course of hearing, the petitioners filed Ext.P8 request before the 1st respondent for a direction to the Board to get the feasibility of the alternate routes examined by experts in the field of electrical energy at the expense of the petitioners with notice and opportunity to both sides and to direct those experts to submit a detailed and reasoned report on the same. The 1st respondent directed the W.P(C) No. 25293 of 2009 -2- electricity board to file objections to the said request and the objections have been so filed. The 1st respondent has heard the matter finally and has taken up the matter for passing orders. It is at that juncture the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, directing 1st respondent to consider the alternate proposals/ routes suggested by petitioners' for drawing 110 K.V. electric lines to the newly constructed 110 K.V. sub station at Kanakappalam, Erumely as contained in Exhibit P7 by himself before deciding upon the question of granting sanction to 2nd Respondent for drawing 110 K.V. lines from Kanjirappally to Erumely for that purpose; (b) to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing 1st Respondent to permit petitioners to get the feasibility of such alternate proposals/routes examined by experts as prayed for in Exhibit P8 before the final decision is taken by him in the matter;” 2. The petitioners' contention is that the 1st respondent should not pass a final order without first passing orders on Ext.P8 request filed by them. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the electricity board stoutly opposes the prayers. According to him, the electricity board has proposed the particular route after examining all possible routes and coming to the conclusion that the proposed route is the most feasible and least expensive. Therefore, W.P(C) No. 25293 of 2009 -3- according to them, no other detailed examination by any other expert is called for in the matter. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I note that in the writ petition, the petitioners have not raised any allegation of malafides or improper motives either against Electricity Board or on the 1st respondent. The particular project is a development project which is being stalled on account of the objections raised by the petitioners. As a result the people of the state are deprived of a development project. The 1st respondent is certainly competent to consider all aspects of the matter, being the competent statutory authority. While considering the matter, it is for the 1st respondent to consider all possible routes in the first instance and to pass a considered order as to whether alternate route suggested by the petitioners are more feasible and less expensive than that proposed by the Electricity Board. It is for the 1st respondent to decide as to whether the request in Ext.P8 should be allowed. I do not think that it would be proper on the part of this court to put fetters on the power of the 1st respondent in the matter. The 1st respondent can either pass separate orders on Ext.P8 or can give reasons in the final order as to why Ext.P8 request cannot be allowed. W.P(C) No. 25293 of 2009 -4- I do not think that I should pre-empt the District Collector in the matter assuming that the District Collector would not consider the matter in its right perspective. Therefore I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs