Dismissed

V.P.Denny v. Union of India

Kerala HC8 Sept 2020WP(C)/14898/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowners sought compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement under the LARR Act for properties used for transmission lines. The court dismissed the public interest petition, declining collateral challenges to administrative proceedings and an earlier judgment. It noted that compensation grievances could be pursued before the appropriate authority individually or collectively.

What the court decided

AI extract

V.P.Denny Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.14898 OF 2020(S)

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 V.P.DENNY AGED 51 YEARS,S/O.V.V.PAULOSE, VALIYAVEETIL(H), CHETTIBHAGAM, VARAPPUZHA-683 517.

¶10

2 UTHAMAN AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, ESWARAKRIPA, KANNANCODE, VELLAI KOVALAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 527.

¶11

3 SAJI KUMAR,

¶12

AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.APPU, KANNASHERI, KUZHIYAMVILA, VELLAI KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 527.

¶13

4 LATHA.S. AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.SAVITHRI, SUNILA, KANNANCODE, VELLAI KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 527.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR SMT.DEENA JOSEPH SHRI.MITHUN C THOMAS SRI.T.K.SHAJITH SMT.DEEPA R MENON SRI.K.RAJAN (MUHAMMA)

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 002.

¶17

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶18

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶19

¶20

3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, KSEB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.

¶21

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶22

5 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶23

6 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, LINE CONSTRUCTION, SUB DIVISION, BALARAMAPURAM-695 501.

¶24

7 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIZHINJAM INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT, VIPANCHIKA TOWER, THYKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶25

8 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., B-9, QUATAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KATWARIASARL, NEW DELHI-110 016, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶26

SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE SR.GP FOR R2,R4 AND R5 SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG FOR R1 SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, SC FOR R3 AND R6 SRI.VIPIN P. VARGHESE, SC FOR R7 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC FOR R8

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-09-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶29

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2020

¶32

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶33

Instant public interest writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

¶34

i) “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the respondents to grant compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement package, in accordance with LARR Act, 2013 for the land owners, whose properties are proposed to be used for the installations of 220KV multi circuit line from Kattakada to Balaramapuram for the Vizhinjam International Sea Port Air Port Limited ('Vizhinjam Project').

¶35

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction, directing the respondents to grant compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement package, in accordance with LARR Act, 2013 for the land owners, whose properties are being used or enjoyed for the installation of 220 KV lines in various projects such as Kudankulam Power Highway Project (400 KV Line), "Madakkathara to Kochi (Kochi Thrissur Electricity Project expansion [KTEP] and other projects, being carried out by respondents 3 and 8, in the State of Kerala.”

¶36

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, 1^st petitioner is a public spirited person and a social worker, 2^nd petitioner is a taxi driver, 3^rd petitioner is a street vendor, and 4^th petitioner is a housewife. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the absolute owners, title holders and in possession of landed properties with residential houses and commercial establishments thereon in Vizhinjam and Venganoor Villages,

¶37

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶38

¶39

Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District. They are the residents of Venganoor Taluk and their properties are needed for installing 220 KV line, for the purpose of proposed Vizhinjam International Seaport project. By virtue of Exhibits-P2 and P3, land owners are entitled to get compensation for their property, in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). However, Exhibits-P4 and P5 show otherwise that it needs more clarification in determining the compensation for poor land owners. Welfare State is bound to follow the ex-proprietary legislation. Petitioners apprehend that constitutional right will be deprived without authority of law.

¶40

3. Petitioners have further stated that the land owners, whose

¶41

properties have been enjoyed or used for installing electric lines, under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, are entitled to compensation, in accordance with the LARR Act. However, the respondents have failed to grant statutory compensation in various projects such as Kudankulam Power Highway Project (400KV Line), Madakkathara to Kochi (Kochi Thrissur Electricity Project Expansion [KTEP]) and other projects, being carried out by respondents 3 & 8 in the State of Kerala. Determination of compensation to the land owners would affect other land owners in the

¶42

State. LARR Act is a revolutionary legislation for land owners and

¶43

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶44

¶45

activities done under thirteen enactments would come under the purview

¶46

of land acquisition. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

¶47

In support of the reliefs sought for, the petitioners have, inter

¶48

alia, raised the following grounds:

¶49

A. Right to property is not only a Constitutional right, but also a human right. Land Acquisition Act, 1961, is an ex-proprietary legislation which should be strictly construed. By virtue of Exts.P2 and P3, petitioners are entitled for compensation, in accordance with Sections 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30, Schedules I, II, & III of LARR Act, 2013. The Parliament has made revolutionary change in land acquisition legislation, extending the beneficial provisions to the land owners, whose properties are being taken away for public purpose. If there is any violation of the statute, it would amount to violation of Articles 14, 21 & 300A of the Constitution.

¶50

B. By virtue of Section 113 of the LARR Act, 2013, Central Government has issued Exhibits P2 and P3, to remove the difficulties and Exhibits P2 and P3 can be read with Sections 105 and 106 of the LARR Act, 2013. These provisions would disclose the real intention of the Legislature, in adding 13 enactments in the IV schedule of the LARR Act, 2013. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to compensation, in accordance with Sections 26 to 31 and Schedules I, II & III of the LARR Act, 2013.

¶51

C. In the case on hand, Exts. P5 and P6 do not reveal the present law, in determining the compensation to the facts of the case. They are in contravention of Exhibits P2 and P3. Exhibits P5 and P6 are to be clarified to the extent of application of LARR

¶52

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶53

¶54

Act, 2013 by this Court. Otherwise, poor landowners would be deprived of compensation.

¶55

D. The respondents have oblique motive in this matter, in determining the compensation and the same cannot be allowed by this Court. A beneficial interpretation should be adopted in construing ex-proprietary legislation, to ensure that the maximum benefits of such legislation are enjoyed by the affected persons; the beneficial interpretation of a statutory provision may be adopted; and a strict interpretation/ construction of land acquisition enactments is always against the State and not against the subject.

¶56

E. Petitioners have further contended that the respondents with malicious intention to curtail or defeat the compensation provisions of an ex-proprietary legislation have issued the impugned proceedings with intent to to defeat or curtail the just and fair compensation for the petitioners, which amounts to malice in law. The legal meaning of 'malice' is 'ill-will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action'. 'Legal malice' or 'malice in law' means 'something done without lawful excuse'. In other words, it is an act done wrongfully and willfully, without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done, from ill-feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Mala fide exercise of power means exercise of statutory power for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended. It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a deprived inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, where intent is manifested by its injurious acts.

¶57

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶58

¶59

F. It is further contended that the object of interpretation of the statute is to determine what intention is conveyed, either expressly or impliedly, by the language use, so far as it is necessary for determining whether, the particular case or state of facts presented to the interpreter, falls within it. Interpretation is the process by which the Courts seek to ascertain the meaning of a particular legislation. By interpretation or construction is meant the measure, by which the court seeks to ascertain the meaning or expound it, or to explain the intendment of the legislature, while marking a law. A common principle of interpretation is that every part of a statute must be construed in a harmonious way by reading every part of it together. Similarly it is also an elementary rule that interpretation of a section to be made by reading all parts of it together. It is not permissible to omit any part of it any part of the section or legislation. There is a maxim; "A Verbis Legis Non-Est Recedendum", which obviously means, "you must not vary the words of a statute". The function of this court in administering statute law is twofold: (i) to discover the facts of the case and then (ii) to discover how the legislature intends him to act in such circumstances. The legislature could not foresee all the cases and make its intention clear so as to make it applicable to all of them. Here, the question arises - should the judge in such cases confine himself within the four corners of the Act or travel beyond and modify the meaning of the word where an apparent absurdity, hardship or injustice will be caused by applying the literal meaning of law.

¶60

G. Petitioners have further contended that Exhibit P8 judgment disclose that though there are no materials to show that the order which is relied on by the petitioners have been laid before

¶61

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶62

¶63

each House of the Parliament, the fact remains that there is no land acquisition in the instant case. If there is no acquisition of land, there cannot be any application of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. Such a finding is erroneous in the eyes of law and contrary to the purposive interpretation of statute.

¶64

H. It is further contended that statutes are meant to implement some policy, to curb public evil or to give benefit to a person or class of persons either in present or in future. The duty of the judiciary is to explain, ascertain and expound the statute, but not to make law. In this process, however, while interpreting legislation, creativity of a Hon'ble Judge cannot be curtailed. In Venkatachalam v. Dy. Transport Commissioner (AIR 1977 SC 482), the Hon'ble Apex Court admitted that as interpreters of law, the Judges are finishers, refiners and polishers of legislation, which comes to them in a State requiring varying degrees of further processing. There are numerous examples that the Judges, either include or exclude words or phrases in the concerned provision or fill up the gaps of law, by adding certain words not contained in the enactment. The true nature of law is to be determined not by the name given to it or its form, but by its substances.

¶65

I. Exhibit P4 judgment passed by the District Court, Wayanad, would show that the provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are irrelevant and immaterial, in view of Sections 173, 174 and 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules 13 and 15 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. It is crystal dear that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 becomes irrelevant after the commencement of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Works of

¶66

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶67

¶68

Licensees Rules, 2006 in the instant case. Electricity Act, 2003 has been enlisted in the IV Schedule of LARR Act, 2013 and legislature intention is to be found out from the statute book and its schedule. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to get compensation as contemplated in the LARR Act, 2013. Any violation in determining the compensation other than LARR Act, 2013 would offend Articles 14, 21 & 300A of the Constitution.

¶69

Heard Mr. T.R.S. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the material available on record.

¶70

Exhibit-P1 is the reply dated 29.07.2019 sent by the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, Balaramapuram, to one V. Krishnakumar, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, stating that the KSEB Ltd. have complied with all the legal procedures and would pay compensation as per the current statute.

¶71

Exhibit-P2 order issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, respondent No.1, is extracted hereunder:

¶72

“Press Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of Rural Development

¶73

28-August-2015

¶74

Order under section 113 (Power to Remove Difficulties) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to extend benefits of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement mentioned in First, Second and Third Schedules to the Acts mentioned in the Fourth Schedule of the Act

¶75

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶76

¶77

Decision:

¶78

Point wise details:

¶79

It is proposed to issue an order under the removal of difficulties section 113 (1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for extending the provisions of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement as mentioned in First, Second and Third Schedules to the Acts mentioned in the Fourth Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

¶80

3. Background:

¶81

The Department of Land Resources (DoLR) is administering the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), 2013. This Act came into force on 01.01.2014 by repealing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Act inter-alia provided for compensation up on times the market value in rural areas and twice the market value of land in urban areas; rehabilitation and resettlement benefits not only for land losers but also for livelihood losers.

¶82

Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 makes the provisions of the determination of the compensation rehabilitation and resettlement in this Act applicable to cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Act. However, the said Section mandated that this had to be initiated by a draft notification placed before each House of Parliament within one year from the date of commencement of this Act. In other words the deadline for this draft notification was 31.12.2014. For the provisions relating to compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to become applicable to land acquisition under the thirteen Acts specified in the Fourth Schedule in the Act, it was necessary to go through the entire process outlined in various subsections of said Section 105. It was that in the interests of families affected by land acquisition under the enactments specified in the

¶83

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶84

¶85

Fourth Schedule, provisions relating to compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement prescribed in this Act be made applicable. Hence it was decided that an amendment should be brought to amend Section 105, forthwith to fulfill the mandated intention the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 within the specified period of one year which was expiring on 31.12.2014.

¶86

Accordingly, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 was promulgated on 31^st December 2014. Subsequently, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015) was promulgated on 3^rd April, 2015 continuity to the provisions of the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 and the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2015) was promulgated on 30^th May, 2015 to give continuity to the provisions of RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015). The replacement Bill relating to the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015) was referred to the Joint Committee of the Houses for examination report and is pending with the Committee. As per the provisions of article 123 of the Constitution, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2015) shall lapse on the 31^st August, 2015, thereby placing the owners at the disadvantageous position, resulting in denial of benefits of enhanced compensation and rehabilitation, resettlement to the cases of land acquisition under the 13 Acts specified in the Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR as extended to the land owners under the said Ordinance. Therefore, since the Central Government consider it necessary to extend the benefits available to the land owners under the RFCTLARR Act to similarly placed land owner whose lands are acquired under the 13 Central enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule, the Government decided to uniformly apply the beneficial provisions of Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act relating to determination of compensation,

¶87

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶88

¶89

rehabilitation and resettlement as were made applicable to cases of land acquisition under the said enactments in the interest of the land owners.

¶90

The Act mentioned in the Fourth Schedule are as follows:-

¶91

(1) The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958;

¶92

(2) The Atomic Energy Act, 1962;

¶93

(3) The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948;

¶94

(4) The Indian Tramways Act, 1886;

¶95

(5) The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885

¶96

(6) The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978;

¶97

(7) The National Highways Act, 1956;

¶98

(8) The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962;

¶99

(9) The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,

¶100

1952;

¶101

(10) The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948;

¶102

(11) The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957;

¶103

(12) The Electricity Act, 2003;

¶104

(13) The Railways Act, 1989;

¶105

Therefore, now it is proposed to issue an order under section 113(1) of the RFCTLARR. Act to extend the provisions relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the said Act.

¶106

Implementation strategy and targets:

¶107

Once approved, an order under section 113(1) of the

¶108

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶109

¶110

RFCTLARR Act will be issued to extend the provisions relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the said Act.

¶111

Major Impact: The provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 will become applicable on the enactments listed in Fourth Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2011:

¶112

Expenditure involved

¶113

Nil

¶114

No. of beneficiaries:

¶115

Whole country

¶116

States/districts covered:

¶117

All the States (except Jammu & Kashmir) and UTs of the country.

¶118

Details and progress of scheme if already running:

¶119

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), 2013 came into force on 01.01.2014 by repealing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”

¶120

Exhibit-P3 Gazette notification dated 28.8.2015 reads thus:

¶121

“MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶122

ORDER

¶123

New Delhi, the 28^th August, 2015

¶124

S.O. 2368(E).- Whereas, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) (hereinafter referred to as the RFCTLARR Act) came into effect from 1st January, 2014;

¶125

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶126

¶127

And whereas, sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act provided for issuing of notification to make the provisions of the Act relating to the determination of the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement applicable to cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act;

¶128

And whereas, the notification envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act was not issued, and the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 (9 of 2014) was promulgated on 31^st December, 2014, thereby, inter-alia, amending Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act to extend the provisions of the Act relating to the determination of the compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement to, cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act;

¶129

And whereas, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015) was promulgated on 3^rd April, 2015 to give continuity to the provisions of the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014;

¶130

And whereas, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2015) was promulgated on 30th May, 2015 to give continuity to the provisions of the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015);

¶131

And whereas, the replacement Bill relating to the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015) was referred to the Joint Committee of the Houses for examination and report and the same is pending with the Joint Committee;

¶132

As whereas, as per the provisions of article 123 of the Constitution, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2015) shall lapse on the 31^st day of August, 2015 and thereby placing the land owners at the disadvantageous position,

¶133

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶134

¶135

resulting in denial of benefits of enhanced compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement to the cases of land acquisition under the 13 Acts specified in the Fourth Scheduled to the RFCTLARR Act as extended to the land owners under the said Ordinance;

¶136

And whereas, the Central Government considers it necessary to extend the benefits available to the land owners under the RFCTLARR Act to similarly placed land owners whose lands are acquired under the 13 enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule; and accordingly the Central Government keeping in view the aforesaid difficulties has decided to extend the beneficial advantage to the land owners and uniformly apply the beneficial provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, relating to the determination of compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement as were made applicable to cases of land acquisition under the said enactments in the interest of the land owners;

¶137

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), the Central Government hereby makes the following Order to remove the aforesaid difficulties, namely:—

¶138

(1) This Order may be called the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015.

¶139

(2) It shall come into force with effect from the 1^st day of September, 2015.

¶140

The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and

¶141

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶142

¶143

resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the said Act.

¶144

[F.No.13011/01/2014-LRD] K.P.KRISHNAN, Addl. Secy.”

¶145

Exhibit-P4 is the order passed by the Additional District Judge,

¶146

Kalpetta, Wayanad in Original Petition (Electricity) No.76/2020 dated 20.12.2014, as regards applicability of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 insofar as compensation is concerned.

¶147

Exhibit-P5 is the minutes dated 7.6.2019 of the 5^th respondent - Additional District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, regarding the dispute as to installation of Kattakada – Vizhinjam 220 KV line on 7-06-2019, after detailed discussion with the petitioners and other land owners, and

¶148

the same is extracted hereunder:

¶149

“As per the petition filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Balaramapuram in this office A.D.M. informed that the meeting was convened in connection with the installation of Kattakkada - Vizhinjam 220 K.V. a double circuit line to resolve the disputes of the local people in the lands through line was passing. In the above case the former ADM directly inspected the land and upon his direction letter was given to resolve the grievance of the public and to conduct spot inspection through Chief Electrical Inspector and A.D.M. informed that the Chief

¶150

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶151

¶152

Electrical Inspector submitted a report.

¶153

A.D.M. read over the relevant portion of the above said report to the representatives participating in the meeting. The person presided over the meeting has informed that the route proposed now is most convenient, it is considering all the suggestions of the people resides in the property through which line is passing made in the earlier meeting that the Chief Electrical Inspector has given the report and in the above report the route considered to be most convenient is the proposed present route and other routes and underground lines will practically cause loss and inconveniences and affect the people and it is not practical. It is further informed that, to solve the inconveniences for the public to a limited extent it is convenient to install Narrow Tower as per the Narrow Tower Technology.

¶154

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Line Construction Sub Division, Balaramapuram who spoke thereafter informed that it is technically difficult to draw the 220 KV line and that other routes will also create more difficulties and will affect more people. Moreover, it was informed that action was taken to draw the line installing a narrow tower as recommended by the Chief Electrical Inspector.

¶155

Sri. Dominic, who spoke next, shared his anxiety. When a line passes through the value of his land will be considerably reduced; the present compensation is too low and demanded that either land is to be completely acquired or the compensation for the land value is to be increased or other routes are to be examined.

¶156

A.D.M. has informed that in the report of the Chief Electrical

¶157

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶158

¶159

Inspector it has reported that the other routes suggested by the people has been examined; that on examining the proposal to draw the line over the paddy lands a lot of lands are required to be acquired and will affect the people more and it was observed that hence drawing of the line through the above route shifting the route cannot be approved and also that on examining the proposal for laying underground cable it is observed that it is very difficult to find out if any complaint occurred in UG cable and there is high electromagnetic field in the UG cable and that will equally affect the human and trees and other similar species.

¶160

Sri.Chellappan submitted that the present compensation is very law and if line has been drawn the land will be rendered useless and they have no other income.

¶161

Sri. Francis, who spoke next, stated that all should understand the anxiety of the parents who have female daughters and all are coolie workers and that land value should be increased; action should be taken to distribute compensation as given in the case of land acquisition for Koodankulam Project; to remove anxiety of the people and also should examine other routes.

¶162

The Assistant Executive Engineer who spoke thereafter has informed that the line is drawing by installing narrow tower and the lowest line is passing through at a height of 21 meters and that the KSEB will grant consent to construct buildings at a height of 5 1/2 meters below the lowest line and that compensation will be given in accordance with law for the land and the trees standing in the right of way (17 1/2 meters to both sides) immediately and application can be submitted to all through court for enhancing the amount

¶163

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶164

¶165

of compensation and that there is no possibility of any danger in the lands under the line for lightning bolt and lightning and that most of the lines are passes through the route of the present 66KV line itself. Tower is installing by reducing the base width to the maximum, but increasing the height as per the Narrow Tower Scheme and hence there will not be any other difficulties.

¶166

Sri. Harikrishnan, then spoke, has stated that the 66KV line was installed in the year 1977 and during that time compensation given was very meager and action should be taken to increase the amount of compensation or else by giving reasonable value land should be acquired.

¶167

A.D.M. heard the objections of all and finally announced the decision of the meeting.

¶168

In the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector in this office has mentioned that a proposal has been submitted to install certain towers changing the route through which the earlier 66KV line was passing and not made clear the reason for such changing. Call for an explanation for it from KSEBL.

¶169

Recommendation should be made to the Government to grant the package given to the 400 KV Edamon-Kochi line project from Koodankulam.

¶170

Specially designed tower (Narrow Tower) with more height is installed in this area.

¶171

Compensation as provided by law should be given by the KSEB.

¶172

Consent should be given by the KSEB as informed in the meeting for construction of a building 5 1/2 meters below the lowest line after examination.

¶173

The proceedings of the meeting ended at 3.00 hrs.

¶174

Sd/Additional District Magistrate”

¶175

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶176

¶177

Exhibit-P6 is order issued by the 5^th respondent ADM on 19.06.2019, granting permission to the 6^th respondent, to install or draw 220 KV lines over the properties owned and possessed by poor land owners in the locality, and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶178

“Sir,

¶179

Sub: Granting electricity connection — issuing order under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and under Sections 164 and 185(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 — reg.

¶180

Ref: 1. Petition No. DB/ESD-KZM/ADM18-19/70 filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kazhakoottam dated 3-5-2018.

¶181

Order No.S1-17015/01 of the Hon’ble District Magistrate dated 15-3-2001.

¶182

In the petition filed by the applicant vide reference (1) it was mentioned to take further action on the complaint submitted by the opposite party against drawing of 220KV double circuit line from Kattakkada to Vizhinjam. To solve the scarcity of electric energy in the south-east areas of Trivandrum District and to reach electricity in Vizhinjam International Port Limited, pride project of the country and also made mention in the petition that it was ordered by the Government vide notification in the gazette No.PPI— 269/window/1649(A)/09 dated 22-12-2019 to draw 220KV line from Kattakkada to Vizhinjam. It was planned to draw the line to be passed more over the paddy field in a manner without causing any inconvenience, reducing the loss and damages at the maximum so also reducing the financial commitment to the KSEB. But in certain places due to technical reasons the line could not be drawn over the paddy

¶183

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶184

¶185

field and hence the line is to be drawn over certain other types of properties and that the above said routes are planned after conducting various types of studies and by examining maximum other routes, more convenient, less distance and by avoiding maximum inconvenience to the general public. In this circumstance petition has been filed before the respected District Collector under Section 68 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

¶186

Respected District Collector who is also the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and under Sections 164 and 185(ii) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 issued order vide reference (2) authorizing the Additional District Magistrate to take final decision on the applications.

¶187

Petition has been submitted vide reference (1) to grant sanction to draw the line through VISL1, 27, 28 and 29 in the line route approved by the KSEB. As the residents of the above route has informed their strong protest and thereupon obstructed the construction activities; hence request was also made in the petition under reference to grant sanction to continue the construction of the same.

¶188

On the basis of the above petition the parties to the complaint were personally heard on 16-10-2018 and 7-62019. Parties participated in the hearing held on 16-10-2018 expressed their strong protest. The parties demanded to conduct the site inspection since there will be much reduction in the value of the property in the area coming under the line; there will be reduction in the transaction of the property and that the owners of the property will get only a lower rate.

¶189

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶190

¶191

Consequent on the request of the opposite parties A.D.M. himself personally conducted the site inspection on 13-11-2018. Former A.D.M. has reported that the K.S.E.B. has informed that the new line is passes through the route 66 KV line passes without much difference and that to reduce the inconvenience of the people of that area planning to install a special tower (narrow tower) and the local people apart from informing their inconveniences has demanded to examine other routes and possibility to draw the line by using underground cables.

¶192

On the basis of the above report was obtained from the Chief Electrical Inspector. It was informed in the report that two alternate options raised by the parties to the complaint were‘ examined and that on examining the route through the paddy fields it was found that for drawing the line more land is to be acquired and it will affect more people. Hence it was informed that the proposal through that route cannot be accepted. Regarding the other proposal for drawing the line by using extra high voltage under line cable, it was stated in the report that the rate is very high for U.G. cables than overhead line and that it is very difficult to find out the complaints in the U.G. cable and that since there is electromagnetic field is very high it will affect the people, trees and plants etc. that the O.H. cable and it was also mentioned that there cannot grow any trees and plants within a particular distance of the right of way of the above U.G.Cable. Hence, it was reported by the Chief Electrical Inspector that the above proposal also cannot be accepted. It was further mentioned in the report that, major portion of the proposed 220 KV Line passes through the existing 66KV line route and there is some cloud in the decision to make

¶193

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶194

¶195

slight change in the route from location 25 to 27 of the existing 66KV line.

¶196

Consequently, on 7-6-2019, a meeting was convened presided over by the A.D.M., including all parties to the complaint. On the basis of the decision in the meeting, it was informed that Specially designed tower(narrow tower) having much height will be installed in these areas and prevailing compensation in accordance with law will be given by the KSEB and that KSEB will give sanction for the construction of the building upto three stories after maintaining statutory clearance. Regarding the cloud in the decision in changing the line route of existing 66 KV line route from location 25 to 27 where the proposed 22OKV line passes KSEB sought clarification from the authorities.

¶197

In the report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer thereafter, explanation was given in changing the line route of existing 66 KV line route from location 25 to 27. It was explained that the tower VISL 1 will be extended about 229 M through the paddy field and only thereafter by using the existing property of VISL 2 to VISL 9 for the construction of 220 KV the loss and damages of the public could be reduced to its maximum. It was also explained that the construction of 220KV line from VISL 2 to VISL 9 has already been completed.

¶198

It was convinced by comparing the above explanation with the sketch.

¶199

In this circumstance on the basis of the personal hearing of the parties to the complaint, site inspection conducted and verification of documents and also the explanation of the KSEBL, the following order is hereby

¶200

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

issued.

ORDER

It is hereby order to draw the line as proposed by the applicant through VISL 1, Loc 27, 28 and 29 by installing Special Designed Tower (narrow tower) having much height by reducing the inconveniences to the nearby residents to the maximum and by giving the compensation in accordance with law.

¶205

Sd/Additional District Magistrate”

¶206

Exhibit-P8 is the judgment dated 25.02.2020 passed by a

¶207

learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19446 of 2019 filed by certain land owners. After considering the relevant statutory provisions,

¶208

and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KSEB v. Livisha and Others reported in 2007 (3) KLT 1, the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition by observing thus:

¶209

“17. As held above, when telegraph and electrical lines are drawn, land is not necessarily acquired. However, the affected party would suffer from diminution of value of the property over which such line is drawn and also loss due to cutting down of trees. The provisions of Act 13 of 1885 provides for the manner in which the amount of compensation is to be computed therefore. The factors which are to be taken into consideration would include the market value of the land, the right of way that is likely to be affected, the extent of line, the nature of agriculture, the nature of the yielding trees situated therein etc. Various factors that are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixation of compensation have been detailed in Livisha (supra). Full compensation for the loss sustained by the

¶210

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶211

¶212

affected persons will have to be paid by the concerned respondents. If the affected persons have any further grievance, they can approach the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

¶213

In that view of the matter, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the respondents are not liable to grant compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement package in accordance with Act 30 of 2013 simply because, there is no land acquisition in these cases. The petitioners shall be entitled to compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Section 16 of Act 13 of 1885.

¶214

Though the writ petition has been instituted as a Public Interest Litigation, perusal of the material on record discloses that except the 1^st petitioner, who claims to be a public spirited person, petitioners 2 to 4 are the land owners in Vizhinjam and Venganoor Villages, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District, and have obstructed to the installation of 220 KV lines over their properties. Thus, it could be seen, under the guise of Public Interest Litigation espousing the cause of the villagers, instant writ petition has been filed. In Guruvayur Devaswom

¶215

Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K.Rajan & Others [(2003) 7 SCC 546], the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarised the principles of law, regarding Public Interest Litigation, and they are reproduced:

¶216

“(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position

¶217

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶218

¶219

to knock the doors of the Court.

¶220

The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. [See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 494, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305)].

¶221

(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. [See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81)]

¶222

(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (AIR 1979 SCC 468), it was held:

¶223

"2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad

¶224

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶225

¶226

and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.” (See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and Ors. (2003) 5 SCALE 138)

¶227

(iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, S.P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 333]

¶228

(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition.

¶229

(vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. [See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri and others (1986) 1 SCC 100]

¶230

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶231

¶232

(vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India and Others 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251)

¶233

(viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others (1987) 1 SCC 227).

¶234

(ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morchai, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 644 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718). In Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West Bengal and others [(1987) 2 SCC 295], this Court held,-

¶235

“61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extent its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the need, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such is required. But this does mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants."

¶236

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶237

¶238

In the unreported judgment dated 30.06.2020 in B.

¶239

Radhakrishna Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors. [W.P.(C) No.12109 of 2020], at paragraph 45, this Court held thus:

¶240

“45. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a public interest writ petition which lacks bona fides, lack of particulars satisfying the requirements of a PIL, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Having regard to decisions considered in Mythri Residents Association

¶241

v. Secretary, Tripunithura Municipality and Others, [2019 KHC 832], it has been summarised by the journal thus:

¶242

“(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

¶243

(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.

¶244

(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

¶245

(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

¶246

(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

¶247

(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

¶248

(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public

¶249

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶250

¶251

injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

¶252

(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.

¶253

(9) The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process.

¶254

(10) Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears.

¶255

(11) Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes.

¶256

(12) This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved.

¶257

(13) Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice.

¶258

(14) It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda.

¶259

(15) This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation.

¶260

(16) There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention.

¶261

(17) Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process.

¶262

(18) This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law.

¶263

(19) This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services.

¶264

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶265

¶266

(20) Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office.

¶267

(21) Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements.

¶268

(22) Courts protect the rule of law.

¶269

(23) There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space.”

¶270

Though, in the relief portion, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus, the pleadings would disclose that there is a collateral challenge to Exhibits-P5 and P6, that they are in contravention of Exhibits-P2 and P3, which is not permissible.

¶271

Petitioners have cited Exhibit-P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 19446 of 2019 dated 25-02-2020, rendered in a case filed by D. Rajan and 7 others, and assailed the correctness of the finding recorded in the said case, in the instant writ petition. During the course of arguments, we were informed that as against Exhibit-P8 judgment, aggrieved persons therein have already pursued their remedy, by filling an appeal. Under the guise of Public Interest Litigation, findings in Exhibit-P8 judgment dated 25-02-2020 in W.P.(C) No. 19446 of 2019, cannot be permitted to be collaterally challenged in the present Writ Petition (C) No.14898 of 2020.

¶272

Exhibit-P4 order in O.P.(Electricity) No. 76 of 2010 dated 20.12.2014, only deals with jurisdictional issue, as to whether a suit is

¶273

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶274

¶275

maintainable or not, for claiming compensation, and Exhibit-P5 is only a minutes of the meeting presided over by the Deputy Collector (General) regarding the dispute as to installation of Kattakada-Vizhinjam 220 KV line and the alleged acquisition of land. After the meeting, the Additional District Magistrate, has minuted thus:

¶276

“1. In the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector in this office has mentioned that a proposal has been submitted to install certain towers changing the route through which the earlier 66KV line was passing and not made clear the reason for such changing. Call for explanation for it from KSEBL.

¶277

Recommendation should be made to the Government to grant the package given to 400 KV Edamon-Kochi line project from Koodankulam.

¶278

Specially designed towers (Narrow tower) with more height is installed in this area.

¶279

Compensation as provided by law should be given by the KSEB.”

¶280

Compensation should be given by the KSEB as informed in the meeting for construction of building 5 ½ meters below the lowest line after examination.”

¶281

The Additional District Magistrate, in Exhibit-P5 minutes, has recorded that compensation provided by law should be given by KSEB.

¶282

Though, the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 19446 and 27378 of 2019, have prayed for an issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the respondents therein to grant compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement package, in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the land owners, in the interests of

¶283

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶284

¶285

justice, after considering the defence, the relief sought for has been declined by the learned single Judge, and as stated above, a writ appeal is stated to have filed against the judgment dated 25.02.2020, passed in W.P.(C) No.19446 of 2020.

¶286

As stated above, we are not inclined to entertain a collateral challenge and moreover, depending upon the compensation, if any, to be paid under the laws applicable to the case of the petitioners and others, there is always a remedy, by approaching the appropriate authority, either individually or collectively.

¶287

In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶288

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶289

Sd/-

¶290

S.Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶291

Sd/-

¶292

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶293

vpv

¶294

W.P.(C)No.14898 of 2020

¶295

¶296

APPENDIX

¶297

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶298

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 29.7.2019 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.8.2015 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.8.2015 BY MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.P.(ELECTRICITY) NO.76/2010 DATED 20.12.2014.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES DATED 7.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT	P7 TYPED COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 2ND & 5TH RESPONDENT IN WPC.NO.19446/2019.
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.19446/2019 dated 25.2.2020.

¶299

/TRUE COPY/

¶300

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.P.Denny v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

V.P.Denny v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Muhammed Asif (Minor)

,K.S.Narayanan Namboothiri Vs the District Magistrate

Praveenkumar.K Vs the State of Kerala

Balamani P. Vs the District Collector and Chairman

Dr.S.v.Mohammed Haris Vs the District Collector Kannur and Chairman

John Joseph Vs State of Kerala