IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25701 of 2009(G)
1. S.SUBAIDA BEEVI, HIGH LAND,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
3. CHAIRMAN, K.S.E.B,
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
6. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
7. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 3rd November,2009
J U D G M E N T
The Kerala State Electricity Board decided to construct
a 220 KV Sub Station at Kattakkada in Trivandrum District.
For this purpose, towers have to be erected and power lines
have to be drawn for 30kms from Pothenkode to
Kattakkada. The total project cost is Rs.112 crores. This is
necessitated because presently part of the southern district
and part of the Trivandrum City are fed through 110 KV line
from Pothenkode to Kattakkada which is overloaded. Hence
these parts are facing voltage problems and frequent
interruption in power supply, which would also affect the
pumping of water to the capital city from Aruvikkara. The
project is intended for supplying power to the proposed
prestigious Vizhinjam Port also. The survey of the line was
carried out in 2003 and the competent authority approved
the route after studying various alternatives and a route
was selected which according to the Board would cause
least inconvenience to all concerned. But the petitioners in
these two writ petitions through whose properties also
W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009
2
these lines would pass objected to the drawing of the lines.
Therefore, the matter was referred to the Additional
District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram who heard the
petitioners in these two writ petitions separately and
passed separate orders which are Ext.P5 in WPC No.26535
of 2009 and Ext.P6 in WPC No.25701/09 by which the
objections raised by the petitioners were rejected and the
Board was permitted to draw the electric lines through the
route proposed by them. Both orders were passed on
28.2.2007. Petitioners have challenged those orders on
10.9.2009 and 18.9.2009 respectively, on the ground that
the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners have not
been properly considered by the Additional District
Magistrate, who disposed of their objections by a non-
speaking order. Petitioners therefore submit that the
impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the
Additional District Magistrate is liable to be directed to
reconsider the alternate routes suggested by the
petitioners.
2. The Board has filed a counter affidavit in which
they would reiterate that the route proposed by them is the
W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009
3
most suitable route and no change is called for in the same.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
It is true that the Additional District Magistrate had not
given elaborate reasons to reject the alternate routes
suggested by the petitioners. But it must be remembered
that the Additional District Magistrate is not a legally
trained person and he cannot be expected to write an order
under 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act like a judgment.
4. In the above circumstances, I wanted the
petitioners to satisfy me as to the suitability of their
alternate routes. Admittedly, the petitioners have not
chosen to conduct any survey of their own. The line runs
into 30 kms. Even a slight change at one point would
ultimately result in a very big change in the ultimate
alignment at the destination point. Petitioners are only
concerned with their own inconvenience. Petitioner in
WPC No.25701/09 has vaguely alleged malafides. He has
not chosen to implead any person against whom malafides
are alleged, in his personal capacity and has not been able
to provide any material in support of his contention of
malafides. Petitioner in the other writ petition does not
W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009
4
even allege malafides. It is settled law that this Court can
interfere with orders passed under Sec. 16 (1) of the
Indian Telegraph Act only if the decision taken is perverse
or the same is mala fide. In cases of such large projects, it
is usual that some people would be slightly
inconvenienced by the same which is not avoidable. That
cannot be the sole reason for changing the alignment. If at
this point of time, a resurvey is ordered to look into the
alternate route suggested by the petitioners, it would delay
the project itself indefinitely which would be against public
interest. In any event, I do not find any perversity in the
order of the District Magistrate so as to interfere on the
same in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction.
In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to
exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners and
accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed.
(S.SIRI JAGAN,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009
5
W.P ( C) Nos.25701 & 26535 of 2009
6