Dismissed

Mathews George, v. District Collector and District Magistrate

Kerala HC12 Feb 2019WP(C)/662/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order regarding underground cable feasibility for a transmission line, alleging non-consideration of objections and invoking a previous judgment. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that technical and financial aspects were beyond its jurisdiction and the District Collector's order was justified.

What did the court decide?

No relief was granted; the writ petition was dismissed without offering any direction to the respondents.

Mathews George, Vs District Collector and District… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 662 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MATHEWS GEORGE, AGED 54 YEARS KANJIRATHUMOOTTIL HOUSE, CSEZ POST, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 037.

¶8

2 ABI.P.I. AGED 38 YEARS THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, CSEZ POST, KAKKANAD, KERALA, PIN682 037.

¶9

3 K.R.RAMADAS AGED 50 YEARS KOONANAJILIKAL HOUSE, KOONANANJILIKAL ROAD, CSEZ

¶10

POST, KAKKANAD, KERALA, PIN - 682 037.

¶11

4 RAJAGOPAL.K.R. AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LATE K.RAJAN, KONNANANJILIKAL HOUSE, CSEZ POST, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 037.

¶12

5 P.SURESH AGED 42 YEARS S/O.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, HOUSE NO.19, ACS TEMPLR ROAD, ACSRA COLONY, KALOOR, PIN- 682 017.

¶13

6 LOHITHAN AGED 61 YEARS CHATHANAMCHIRA, THUTHIYOOR, CSEZ POST, KAKKANAD, KERALA, PIN - 682 037.

¶14

7 I.D.PRASANTH AGED 39 YEARS VILLA NO.11, AMMUKKU - CHATHANAMCHIRA LINK ROAD, THITHIYOOR, CSEZ POST, KAKKANAD, KERALA, PIN - 682 037.

¶15

WP(C).No. 662 of 2019

¶16

¶17

8 MANOJ LOPEZ AGED 52 YEARS S/O.INNOCENT LOPEZ, VILLA NO.12, ANAMUKKU - CHATHANAMCHIRA LINK ROAD, THUTHIYOOR, CSEZ POST, KAKKANAD, KERALA, PIN - 682 037.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.C.S.SUNIL

¶19

RESPONDENTS:

¶20

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030.

¶21

2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶22

TRANSGRID TC.SUB DIVISION, KALAMASSERI, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, ALUVA - 683 101.

¶23

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP, SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR-SC

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No. 662 of 2019

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioners are before this Court in a second round of litigation. In the first one, namely, in WP(C) No. 40565/2018, they had impugned an order of the District Collector under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act on the allegation that certain materials, relied upon by the said Authority, had not been made available to them; and, therefore, that the said order was in violation of the judgment of this Court in Kanaran Vs. Additional District Magistrate and Others ((2013 (3) KHC) 445). I had found favor with this contention and I had, therefore, allowed the said writ petition, directing the District Collector to favor the petitioners with the report in question and to thereafter take a fresh decision. It transpires that the District Collector has acted in obedience to the directions of this Court and that Ext.P8 order has been issued subsequent to the exercise earlier directed. The petitioners, however, impugn this order also as being illegal and unlawful on the ground that their objections, namely Ext.P7, were not considered by the District Collector before he issued the said order.

¶29

The learned standing counsel for the KSEB,

¶30

Sri.Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, submits that the allegations made by the

¶31

¶32

WP(C).No. 662 of 2019

¶33

petitioners in this case are completely untenable, because the technical feasibility report prepared by the KSEB, which had not been earlier given to the petitioners, was given to them as per the directions of this Court in the afore mentioned judgment in WP(C) No. 40565/2018 and that the said report is available on record as Ext.P6. The learned standing counsel says that, as is clear from Ext.P7 the petitioners have not raised any objections to the specific reasons stated in Ext.P6 as to why their request for having the electric line erected through an underground method is not technically feasible and that it is very expensive and hence not costeffective. The learned standing counsel, therefore, says that the present attempt of the petitioners is only speculative and nothing else.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. C.S. Sunil, in response to the submissions of the learned standing counsel for the KSEB, asserts that his clients have, in fact, responded point by point to the aspects recorded by the KSEB, in Ext.P6 report, against the laying of the underground cables. According to him, his clients have clearly shown in Ext.P7 that the cost for laying an underground cable is much lower than the cost for using the existing overhead 110 KV line and, therefore, that the District Collector ought to

¶35

WP(C).No. 662 of 2019

¶36

¶37

have considered this in detail before having issued Ext. P8.

¶38

Even when I hear the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. C.S. Sunil as afore, the fact remains that in Ext.P6, the KSEB has clearly stated that the combination of an underground cable and overhead line cable is feasible only for a short length but that in this case, the existing underground cable is nearly 7 kms consequently rendering the additional cable length as being not technically feasible. This particular statement in Ext.P6 has not been controverted in any manner by the petitioners in Ext.P7 objections and, therefore, on that ground alone the District Collector was justified in issuing Ext.P8 order. Further, the calculation of the cost as stated by the petitioners in this writ petition is not corroborated by any other Agency or official entity and hence, since the KSEB asserts that the cost for laying underground cables as suggested by the petitioners, is much more than what is pleaded by them, I can only accept the version of the KSEB. In any event, this Court cannot enter into the areas relating to the technical aspects or financial calculations, it being beyond the province of this Court jurisdictionally.

¶39

When I say as afore, I am not oblivious to the submissions of

¶40

Sri. C.S. Sunil, that the length of the suggested underground cable can be

¶41

¶42

WP(C).No. 662 of 2019

¶43

substantially reduced by re-assigning the switching station, presently proposed at Brahmapuram to Irumpanam and thus that the actual length of the underground cable will increase only by 1.5 kms. He further says that the Sub Station at the Cochin Special Economic Zone can thus act as a 'Boosting Station' to overcome power loss, if any.

¶44

It is indubitable from the afore submissions that what the petitioners are attempting to do is to compel modification of the entire technical plan being followed by the KSEB and it is needless to say that such an exercise cannot be done either by the District Collector or even by this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the Switching Station can be re-assigned to Irumpanam and whether because of this, the length of the underground cable can be reduced etc, are matters which are purely in the domain of technical expertise, over which this Court cannot claim any jurisdiction or competence to state affirmitively upon. I, therefore, cannot accept these submissions and I am constrained to repel them. Further, the calculation of the costs involved, as stated by the petitioners in this writ petition is not corroborated by any other Agency or Official entity and hence, since the KSEB asserts that the cost for laying underground cables, as suggested

¶45

¶46

WP(C).No. 662 of 2019

¶47

by the petitioners, is much more than what is pleaded by them, I can only accept the version of the KSEB, since as I have already said above, this Court cannot delve into technical aspects or financials and state affirmatively on it.

¶48

When I made my mind clear as afore at the Bar, Sri. C.S. Sunil, the learned counsel for the petitioners, prayed that the KSEB be at least directed not to change the alignment as is presently fixed, because in that

¶49

event, his clients will be put to further prejudice, which will become irreparable.

¶50

Sri. Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, learned standing counsel for the KSEB, says that he does not understand the purport of the above submission because, no proposal has been made by the KSEB to change the alignment as is presently fixed and that it will not be done, except after compliance of due procedure of law.

¶51

In the afore circumstances and recording the statement made by Sri. Sudheer Ganesh Kumar as afore, I dismiss this writ petition, being unable to offer any relief to the petitioners for the reasons stated above.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶54

Ns //true copy// PA to Judge

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

WP(C).No. 662 of 2019

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONERS'S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 16/10/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER	REPRESENTATION DATED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT .
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 25/10/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER	MASS REPRESENTATION DATED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT S WITH GOOGLE MAP.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 1ST	ORDER DATED 10/12/2018 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE POINTING OUT THE	GOOGLE MAP OF THE LOCALITY LOCATION.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE IN WRIT PETITION PASSED BY THIS HO	JUDGMENT DATED 19/2/2018 (C) NO.40565 OF 2018 N'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF FEAS BY THE 2ND RESPON	IBILITY REPORT SUBMITTED DENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE EXHIBIT P6 FILED	OBJECTION CUM REPLY TO BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE 31/12/2018 PASSED	PROCEEDINGS DATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Mathews George, v. District Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathews George, v. District Collector and District Magistrate

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

Elsy Paul, Vs State of Kerala

M/S Sultan and Company, Vs State Bank of India

Kiran Kumar T.S., Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Co. Operative Bank

Anil.B.Menon Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.a.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sherly Joseph, Vs the Authorised Officer