IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1214 of 2009 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10083/2009 Dated 21/05/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ P.J.JOHNY ALEX @ DENNY THOMAS, PAZHAMPILLY HOUSE, DONBOSCO ROAD, VADUTHALA - KOCHI - 682 023. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, H.M.T.COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY - 683 503. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, H.M.T.COLONY P.O. 4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., DEVI KRIPA, HIG AVENUE ROAD, 38/1968 GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 020. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.1214 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. The petitioner/appellant, owner of an island known as Pazhampilly Thuruthu, wherein he proposes to establish a tourist resort has challenged the action of respondents 2 to 4 in shifting and erecting an electric tower. The learned Single Judge considering the dire necessity to erect the tower declined to interfere and rejected the writ petition with slight modification. Hence the present appeal is filed regarding the location of the towner. 2. After issuance of the notice the third respondent has filed an affidavit explaining the necessity as well as the terms put up in lieu of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondents. The appellant undertakes to construct basement of the tower at the newly proposed location in the north W.A.No.1214 of 2009 - 2 - western corner of his property already identified and according to the third respondent the following terms are necessary for completion of the work: “(1) The quality of the material used should be approved by the Board's officials. (2) Work should be carried out under the close supervision of Board's officials, for which Appellant has to remit 10% of the estimate amount as supervision charges. (3) Since the work on the International Container Terminal is time bound, and the Board is obliged to complete its work to enable M/s.RVNL to complete the work of the Rail link without any delay, the entire work of relocation of tower should be completed within 30 days from the date of this Hon'ble court passing any direction in this regard. Already 4 months time had elapsed due to the pendency of the case. Further delay in completion of tower erection will affect the timely completion W.A.No.1214 of 2009 - 3 - of rail connectivity to I.C.T.T. Vallarpadam, an infrastructural project of national importance.” 3. The appellant is agreeable for all the terms except the time limit fixed for completion of the work, i.e. within 30 days. It is submitted that as per the records, the third respondent himself has taken 45 days to complete the work and that much time minimum should be given to the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submits that the work is less as only three foundation pillars are to be constructed and that requires only 30 days. 4. Taking into consideration the arrival of Monsoon, though we do not intend to change the term, we give liberty to the appellant to complete the work within 30 days from tomorrow with an additional period of 15 days, if required. We make it clear that in view of the directions as mentioned above, there is no need for depositing the costs except the 10% supervisory charges. We also make it clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent as it W.A.No.1214 of 2009 - 4 - is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Writ appeal stands disposed of as above. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns