The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed against the rejection of objections to a liquefied natural gas pipeline route change. The Court held that considering the map and public necessity, no interference was warranted.
The appeal was dismissed. Any orders restraining the respondents from executing the work were vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/13TH SRAVANA, 1939
WA. No.1534 of 2017 () IN WP(C).19148/2013
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-05-2017 IN WP(C) NO.19148/2013.)
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:
BY ADV. SRI.A. K. JOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
R1 BY ADV. SRI. N. NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI. K. ANAND (SR.) SMT. LATHA ANAND SRI. M. N. RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI. JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. &
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
W.A. No. 1534 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent as directed by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2017.
WA.1534/17
-:2:-
objections which would be considered by the authorities in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed and the contention advanced with much vehemence is that the route was changed in a mala fide manner upon political considerations. It is in that perspective, we directed the respondents to give a proper map of the area, which they have produced in their statement as Annexure R2(b). We have perused the same. A reference to the said map substantiates the submission of the respondents.
-:3:-
WA.1534/17
the writ petitioners/appellants, but, we must keep in mind that here is a project for public good. Whatever be the alignment, some people are bound to suffer in some manner. The question, therefore, is of balancing public right and the rights of the individual.
record, we think that this is not a proper case for interference. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.
The project is unduly delayed. We would thus, vacate any order restraining the respondents from executing the work by any authority or court.
Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice
Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge
krj.4/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the matter considering the change in the pipeline route.
Whether the project caused undue delay warranting vacation of restraint orders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. John Ukken
George J. Ukken
Union of India
GAIL (India) Limited
The Competent Authority
Navaniti Prasad Singh
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
