Disposed

Saroj.C v. the District Collector

Kerala HC11 Nov 2019WP(C)/1226/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging proposed upgrade of a power line. It directed respondents to consider the petitioner's objections, obtain verification reports, maintain status quo, and offer a personal hearing before final decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to resubmit representation; Third Respondent to obtain verification report; Fifth Respondent to dispose of representation by 13/12/2019 offering hearing; Status quo maintained

Saroj.C Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.1226 OF 2016(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAROJ.C

¶8

W/O. LATE JOHN VICTOR, VICTOR VILLA, KALLUVETTAN KUZHI, VENGANOOR P.O., VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695523.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LINE CONSTRUCTION SUB DIVISION, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

4 PROJECT MANAGER

¶15

OFFICE OF THE PROJECT MANAGER, KATTACODE P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572.

¶16

5 ADDL.R5.ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, KODAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/11/2019 IN WPC 1226/2016.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENONSCKSEB R1 BY SRI.N.RAPHY RAJ, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

GP PRIYA KHAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.1226 OF 2016

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 11th day of November 2019 The petitioner prays for the following

¶25

reliefs.

¶26

i)”Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P4 and all proceedings culminating therein and pursuant thereto; ii)Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents three and four to consider and take expeditious action Exts.P2 and P3 within such time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶27

iii)Pass such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the

¶29

proposed action of respondents in establishing by upgrading 66KV line to 220KV through Survey Number.155/1-6. The petitioner through Exts.P2

¶30

and P3 had taken a few objections against the proposed action of respondents. The petitioner, firstly objects to the proposed up-gradation in all forms and secondly the grievance is that the respondents without even looking into the

¶31

WP(C).No.1226 OF 2016

¶32

¶33

objections taken by the petitioner are proposing to establish or upgrade the existing line. Hence the Writ petition.

¶34

3. Adv.Ayyappan Shankaran states

¶35

that the petitioner is satisfied, if the objections stated by the petitioner in Ext.P2 are considered by respondent numbers 3 to 5, an opportunity of hearing is provided and a decision is communicated on Ext.P2.

¶36

4. Adv. K.M.Sathyanatha Menon appearing for Electricity Board objects to such a direction firstly by drawing the attention of the court to Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 that the petitioner has not addressed these representations to the competent authority; an important up- gradation process is withheld from further progress on account of the stay granted by this Court. However to shorten the litigation, requests the court to direct timely consideration and disposal

¶37

of Ext.P2 by third respondent and fifth respondents.

¶38

5. Taking note of the alternative

¶39

WP(C).No.1226 OF 2016

¶40

¶41

submissions viz for disposing of Exts.P2 and P3 made by the advocates appearing for the parties the writ petition stands disposed of by this Judgment.

¶42

a) Petitioner is given liberty to resubmit Ext.P2 representation accompanied by a copy of this judgment within two weeks from today to respondent numbers 3 and 5.

¶43

b) Third respondent, if so advised, can obtain field verification report or status report on the objections taken by the petitioner in Ext.P2 within one week thereafter from KSEB.

¶44

c) Fifth respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P2 representation as

¶45

expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 13/12/2019.

¶46

d) Fifth respondent offers opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner before a final decision is taken in this behalf.

¶47

WP(C).No.1226 OF 2016

¶48

¶49

e) The parties are directed to maintain

¶50

status quo as on date for four weeks from today.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

RMV

WP(C).No.1226 OF 2016

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX

¶58

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF PETITIOER'S ELDER SON ISSUED BY THE STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD OF GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶60

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 4-11-2015.`

¶61

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT APPLICATION DATED 7-11-2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶62

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO. EB/BLPM-VZM/353/TRESS/DTD. 03-11-2015 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER.

¶63

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶64

EXHIBIT R3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN PROPERTY OF SAROJ C.

Saroj.C v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj.C v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jinulal Vs the Authorized Officer

I.G.Giri Vs Syndicate Bank

Rosamma Mathai, Vs State Bank of India

All Kerala Ex-Service Security Staff and Allied Service Association, Vs Union of India

Ratheesh.M, Vs State of Kerala

Venunath.R Vs Union of India