Quashed

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. the Addl.District Magistrate, Ernakulam

Kerala HC1 Jul 2016WP(C)/10692/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside an order under the Indian Telegraph Act where the Additional District Magistrate failed to serve the Electrical Inspector's report on the petitioner or notice on affected property owners before passing it. The Court directed a fresh hearing and reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; ADM directed to recount objections after issuing notices and consider objections within three months.

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs the Addl.District… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016/10TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10692 of 2011 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, "CHANDINI", PLOT NO.190-B, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

THE ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011.

¶11

THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶12

SHRI.JOSE P.ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY, PELLISSERRY HOUSE, AMMADOM DESOM, AMMADOM P.O.,

¶13

THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 563.

¶14

SHRI.MADHU GOPALAKRISHNAN, KOMPANOLIL HOUSE, KOTTAMON PARA P.O., - 689 667,

¶15

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BOBBY JOHN R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-07-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 10696/2011, WPC. 19434/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 10692 of 2011 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 23.04.2010 IN WP(C) No.13573 OF 2010 v.

¶22

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.Dis/26464/10/M5 DATED 13.10.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 18.11.2010 IN WP(C) No.33962/2010 U.

¶24

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 01.11.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL).

¶26

EXT.P5(A) : ORIGINAL OF GOOGLE MAP OF THE ROUTE ALINGMENT OF LOCATION TOWER NO.285/0 TO LOCATION TOWER 293/0.

¶27

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED Y THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM, BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE NO.T2-15136/2010/ELE DATED 19.02.2011.

¶28

EXT.P6(A) : SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS/66696/10/ME DATED 22.02.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)

¶30

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF CALCULATION STATEMENT SHOWING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE INVOLVED IN RE-ALIGNING THE ROUTE TO BE INCURRED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) Nos. 10692, 10696 and 19434 of 2011

¶38

- - - - Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

These writ petitions concern drawal of electric line by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), in relation to the project which involves drawal and construction of a 400 KV double circuit electrical power transmission line from Tirunelveli to Kochi and from Kochi to North Thrissur. For easy reference parties and documents referred as described in W.P.(C) No.10692/2011, unless otherwise stated.

¶41

The issue presently is with reference to the objection raised by respondents 3 and 4, in respect of the drawal of line through their property. They had taken a contention that if the line is drawn as contemplated by the Corporation, substantial portion of their property would be affected in so far as several valuable and yielding tress will have to be cut and removed. They also submitted that there is no necessity to draw the line through their property as a more convenient line could be drawn which will be more beneficial to the Corporation. On account of

¶42

WPC 10692/11 and conn. cases.

¶43

-:2:-

¶44

the objection raised by them, the matter was referred to the Additional District Magistrate (for short 'ADM') under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The ADM, after hearing all parties concerned and after obtaining report from the Electrical Inspector, approved the line suggested by the Electrical Inspector. Accordingly, an order had been passed on 22.02.2011. The operative portion of the order reads as under :

¶45

“Both the parties were heard and all versions were carefully examined, including the expert opinion of the Electrical Inspector, Ernakulam. Respondent's request for drawing the line straightly by avoiding curved and warped way and the petitioner's submission regarding the clearance of an existing house was also examined in detail. It is seen that, as per the opinion of Electrical Inspector, Ernakulam, the existing house has adequate clearance even if the house coming under the line and aligning the line straight from A to C is feasible and will be technically right and just. Moreover, the length of the line will be reduced from 644 meters to 606 meters and it is the natural alignment.

¶46

Therefore, the petitioner, Power Grid Corporation has been directed to draw the line as suggested by the Electrical Inspector, Ernakulam, i.e. aligning the line straight from A to C and ordered as such.”

¶47

The main contention urged by the Corporation while filing

¶48

W.P.(C) No.10692 of 2011 is that if the line is drawn as

¶49

WPC 10692/11 and conn. cases.

¶50

-:3:-

¶51

suggested by the ADM, it will create substantial changes to the entire alignment. According to them, several foundations had already been constructed in the proposed line and substantial expenditure will be incurred for putting up new foundations. That apart, they also expressed doubt regarding the feasibility of the change in alignment. It is contended that the ADM without even serving on the Corporation, a copy of the report submitted by the 2^nd respondent, Electrical Inspector, proceeded to pass the impugned order.

¶52

The other two writ petitions are filed by persons who have properties through the line which is now proposed to be drawn as per the directions issued by the ADM. Their contention is that though such a proposal was made, they were not heard in the matter and no notice has been given to them. Hence they challenge the order passed by ADM.

¶53

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, by placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by them, contends that there is no violation of principles of natural justice, as all the parties were heard and Corporation was well aware of the report of the Electrical Inspector and therefore,

¶54

WPC 10692/11 and conn. cases.

¶55

-:4:-

¶56

they cannot contend that they were not aware of the proceedings of the ADM. It is also argued that the records will clearly disclose that it is after hearing all the affected parties including the Corporation that the impugned order was passed. It is also contended that the route now proposed by the Electrical Inspector, which is approved by the ADM, is more technically feasible than the earlier route suggested by the Corporation. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 4 also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate [1997(2) KLT 979] and Johny E.C. v. Additional District Magistrate [2015 (5) KHC 40] by contending that this Court should not interfere with the proceedings of ADM in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no doubt about the proposition laid down in these judgments. But the fact remains that this Court can interfere if there is violation of principles of natural justice or there is any patent illegality or jurisdictional error. In so far as the present cases are concerned the main allegation is that there is violation of principles of natural justice and therefore this Court can consider whether the impugned order calls for any interference in that ground.

¶57

WPC 10692/11 and conn. cases.

¶58

-:5:-

¶59

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the only question to be considered in the present writ petitions is whether there is any violation of principles of natural justice.

¶60

The main contention urged by learned counsel for the Corporation is that they have not been served with the copy of the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the other petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 10696 and 19434 of 2011 submits that since they were affected parties, it would have been appropriate to issue notice to them. It is contended that the new line approved by ADM passes

¶61

through their properties and unless their objections are also heard in the matter, no finality can be attained to the order passed by the ADM.

¶62

Principally the question to be considered is whether there is any violation of the principles of natural justice. Records of the ADM as well as the Corporation has been placed before me. Perusal of the records would indicate that the proceedings of the ADM was over by 19.02.2011, which was the date on which the report was submitted by the Electrical Inspector. ADM had

¶63

WPC 10692/11 and conn. cases.

¶64

-:6:-

¶65

passed the order on 22.02.2011. Though it is stated that the parties were heard in the matter, it is not evident that a proper hearing has been held after the report of the Electrical Inspector which was made available on 19.02.2011. The proceedings also does not disclose that a copy of the report had been given to the Corporation, nor any notice had been issued to the other affected parties.

¶66

The Corporation has a case that though the route now proposed by the Electrical Inspector is a straight line from one point to the other, it is not technically feasible, taking into consideration the overall alignment. That apart, according to them, foundations have been constructed in such a manner to draw the line through the route proposed by the Corporation itself and when changes are made, substantial loss will be incurred by the Corporation.

¶67

Having known that a copy of the report has not been furnished to the Corporation and having known that other property owners through which the line passes, had not been given notice, it is clear that natural justice has been violated. If any material is relied upon by the authority, necessarily such

¶68

WPC 10692/11 and conn. cases.

¶69

-:7:-

¶70

materials ought to have been served on the parties concerned. It is evident from the records now available that it is after the order was served on the Corporation that the Corporation had requested for a copy of the order of the Electrical Inspector which was referred to by the ADM in the impugned order. It is pointed out that on account of not providing a copy of the report, the right to objection has been denied. Taking into consideration of the overall factual situation involved in the matter, I am of the view that this matter requires to be reconsidered by the ADM.

¶71

It is brought to the notice of this Court that presently no work is being carried on in the said power line. However, in view of the fact that the drawal of the line has not been abandoned so far, it is for the ADM to consider the grievance of all parties concerned and take a fresh decision in the matter.

¶72

In the result, the above writ petitions are disposed of as under :

¶73

i) Ext.P7 order in W.P.(C) No.10692/2011 is set aside. The ADM is directed to consider the objections raised by the parties afresh after issuing notice to the Corporation and the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.10696 and 19343 of 2011 or any other

¶74

WPC 10692/11 and conn. cases.

¶75

-:8:-

¶76

person who will be affected by the existing line as well as the proposed line.

¶77

ii) The Corporation and other parties shall be given an opportunity to file necessary objection or representation against the report of the Electrical Inspector and the matter shall be considered and disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶78

A.M. Shaffique Judge

¶79

ttb/01/07

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. the Addl.District Magistrate, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. the Addl.District Magistrate, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Vinayaka Prime Vehicles (P) Ltd. Vs the Asst. Commissioner (Assmt)

M/S.Southern Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

C. Saralakumari Vs the Manager

Prasad Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B.

Ramnath S. Vs Authorised Officer, Asset Recovery Branch

Dr.P.M.Manojan Vs the Fdeputy Chief Engineer