IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25293 of 2009(F)
1. K.S.JOSEPH, KARIMPANAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. DONY SEBASTIAN, KARIPPAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
3. SHAJAHAN.K.H., PALAKAKKAVU,
4. ANSALA SHAJAHAN, DO. DO. DO.
5. DENNIS JOY, PEEDIECKAL HOUSE,
6. DAVIS JOY, DO. HOUSE, DO. DO.
7. K.S.THOMAS, KARIMPANAL HOUSE,
8. ANITHA THOMAS, DO. HOUSE, DO. DO.
9. JOHN JOSEPH, EDATHINAKKATTU HOUSE,
10. SHAJI MATHEW, THAKADIYIL HOUSE,
11. V.M.MATHEW, VELLAPANNIL HOUSE,
12. MARIAMMA MATHEW, DO. HOUSE, DO. DO.
13. THOMAS NICHOLAS, KARIMPANAL HOUSE,
14. JOSEPH NICHOLAS, DO. HOUSE, D. DO.
15. K.S.SEBASTIAN, KARIMPANAL HOUSE,
16. ELIZABETH ALEXANDER,
17. A.J.THOMAS, ARUVIYIL HOUSE,
18. HANIBALL DOMINIC, KARIMPPAPARAMBIL
19. BENOY CYRIAC, NJAVALLY HOUSE,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
3. THE DEPUTY CHEIF ENGINEER,
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :14/09/2009
O R D E R
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