Allowed

George Christom & Another v. the Executive Engineer & Others

Kerala HC20 Dec 2011WP(C)/29888/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders issued by the Additional District Magistrate regarding the route for a 33 KV Electric line. The petitioner sought alternatives to cut fewer yielding rubber trees. The Court held the District Magistrate failed to consider feasibility and directed a fresh decision based on a personal local inspection. Petition allowed; orders quashed.

What did the court decide?

Exts. P10 and P11 orders quashed. Respondent directed to consider matter afresh after conducting a local inspection personally and issuing fresh orders within one month.

George Christom & Another Vs the Executive… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 29888 of 2010 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. GEORGE CHRISTOM, GRACE ESTATE, NILAMBUR TALUK, AMARAMBALAM VILLAGE

¶8

AMARAMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MURUKESH.N., USHA ESTATE,

¶10

NILAMBUR TALUK, AMARABALAM VILLAGE, AMARAMBALAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION, K.S.E.B. MUNDUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM - 676 509.

¶14

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.

¶15

3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695036

¶16

4. TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR, TALUK OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505.

¶17

5. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, MALAPPURAM, O/O.THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KUNNUMMEL, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶18

6. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

svs

¶22

W.P.(C). NO. 29888/2010

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.

¶26

P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.

¶27

P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

P4: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29/06/2010 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶29

P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29/06/2010 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶30

P6: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 04/09/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE SKETCH OF THE AREA.

¶31

P7: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 04/09/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE SKETCH OF THE AREA.

¶32

P8: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15/09/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶33

P9: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15/09/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶34

P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶35

P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION OF THE 2^nd PETITIONER.

¶36

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

svs

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 29888 OF 2011

¶42

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2011

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

Exts.P10 and P11 orders issued by the 6^th respondent in exercise of power conferred under Section 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, is under challenge in this writ petition. The subject matter pertains to the drawl of a 33 KV Electric line from Veliyamthodu to Pookkotumpadam through the estate owned by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the proposed route will cause heavy damage since many numbers of yielding rubber trees have to be cut. According to the Kerala State Electricity Board they have examined feasibility of the alternate route suggested by the petitioners and it was found as not feasible due to the long distance and because necessary clearance cannot be provided from the buildings situated near by, because the route is proposed through a PWD road. The Board also

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 29888 OF 2011 2

¶46

contented that it is not practicable to draw a line through the PWD road, because of the heavy cost involved as well as due to the possible objections which may arise from the affected parties.

¶47

It is noticed that, the 6^th respondent had obtained reports of the Electrical Inspector and the Tahsildar, Nilambur. The Electrical Inspector has reported that the proposed route is technically more suitable since there is an existing old 11 KV line in the said route. It is stated that the alternative route is through a public road lying near to the estate and that it will create more technical problems and will affect large number of public, as well as it is more expensive. The Tahsildar also reported that the route proposed through the estate is only an expansion of the existing 11 KV line and it is more feasible, where as the alternate route suggested through PWD road will affect a large number of public, and may lead to removal of their house and a number of shops , trees and mosques, and which will result in a crisis.

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 29888 OF 2011 3

¶49

The petitioners placed much reliance on Ext.P8 and P9, subsequent reports submitted by the Electrical Inspector to the 6^th respondent. In Ext.P8 and P9 it is stated that the drawing of the line through alignment of the existing 11 KV line is more feasible. However, it is suggested that if the petitioners will meet the cost of the damages which will be involved in drawing of the line through the alternate route suggested, there is no technical difficulty in drawing line through such route. Learned counsel for the petitioners contented that the 6^th respondent had failed to examine the matter on the basis of Ext.P8 and P9 reports.

¶50

It is noticed from Exts.P10 and P11 that the Additional District Magistrate had taken note of the second report of the Electrical Inspector. But the contents of those reports and the suggestions made were discarded on the basis of the objections raised by the Kerala State Electricity Board. Contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Electrical Inspector had given such

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 29888 OF 2011 4

¶52

a report after being satisfied that there is no technical objections in drawing of the line through the alternate route suggested, on the basis of the assurance made by the petitioner to bear the additional expenses and cost of damages. According to learned counsel, the 6^th respondent had failed to take note of such a suggestion and to consider its feasibility.

¶53

Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 vehemently opposed the contentions pointing out that it is totally not feasible to draw the line through the PWD Road, since there are a lot of commercial and residential buildings situated, including a mosque. It is contented that it may not be possible to provide statutory clearance from those buildings, considering the fact that the line proposed is 33 KV line.

¶54

6 . While considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the 6^th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter on the basis of a local inspection to be conducted personally, taking note

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 29888 OF 2011 5

¶56

of all the reports received, with due notice to the petitioners and other affected persons , and to take a fresh decision on the basis of such inspection.

¶57

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P10 and P11 orders. The 6^th respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass fresh orders, after conducting a local inspection personally, with due notice to the petitioner and other affected persons if any. Such inspection shall be done at the earliest and fresh orders on the matter shall be issued considering urgency of the Electricity Board to complete the work in question at the earliest. At any rate, the matter shall be disposed of within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

smm

W.P.(C) No. 29888 OF 2011 6

¶62

W.P.(C) No. 29888 OF 2011 7

George Christom & Another v. the Executive Engineer & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Christom & Another v. the Executive Engineer & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geogy Varghese Vs Ammini P.G.

Vinodkumar P Vs Chairman,Federal Bank

Jisha P.Sainudeen Vs M.G.University

M/S.Central Advertising Agency and Anr. Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Dr.Ganesh Das Vs the Chairman/Convenor of the Selection C

C.M.Bose Vs the Recovery Officer