Kerala High Court
K.V.Poulose vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 4 November, 2010
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16595 of 2010(Y)
1. K.V.POULOSE, S/O.REV.FR.GEEVARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :04/11/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 16595 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 27 Ares of land in Sy.No.159/3 and 25.7 Ares in Sy.No.159/4 of Kunnathunadu Village in Ernakulam District, filed this Writ Petition with prayers to quash Ext.P7 order and for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 (sic 1 and 2) not to draw the line as proposed by them and to draw the line suggested as per Exts.P5 and P6.
2. The major portion of the central share of power to the State and power allocated from the Koodamkulam Atomic Power Station have to be transmitted through the Multi-circuit line from Pallikkara to Brahmapuram and it is against its proposed route that the petitioner raised his objection to the extent it proposes to be drawn over his property and for that purpose to erect towers in his property. In fact, the proposal is to draw a 220 KV Multi- circuit transmission line for evacuation of power from the 400 KV sub-station which is being constructed by M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. At the instance of the petitioner and similarly situated objectors, the matter was referred to the third respondent under W.P.(C) NO.16595/2010 2 Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act r/w Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the third respondent in respect of the petitioner's objections. Admittedly, it was issued after complying with the principles of natural justice. As per Ext.P7, the third respondent allowed the first respondent to draw electric lines as originally proposed by them. This Writ Petition has been filed on being aggrieved by Ext.P7 order.
3. Earlier, a similar Writ Petition viz., W.P.(C).NO.17166/10 filed by another land owner raising grievance against the very proposed drawal of the Multi-Circuit transmission line from Pallikkara to Brahmapuram, but relating to a different point through the same route, was considered by this Court. After considering the fact that the drawing of lines as proposed by respondents 1 and 2 is for public interest, this Court considered the rival contentions in the light of the decision in Ajith K.N and others v.State of Kerala and others reported in 2010(2) KHC 895. Relying on the said decision, it was held that private interest has to give way to public interest. It is adverted to solely to fix the scope of consideration. In short, the endeavour is to examine whether any deviation from the originally proposed route can be effected so as to minimise the W.P.(C) NO.16595/2010 3 hardships and inconveniences of the petitioner which is invariably inevitable. From the contentions raised in this Writ Petition, it is evident that the main grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the proposal to draw the lines from point D to E1 and D to E. It is contended that the feasibility and desirability to have a single tower erection in place of two, to avert drawing of two lines ie., from D to E and then D to E1, was not seriously considered by the respondents.
4. A counter affidavit and then an additional counter affidavit dated 27.9.2010 have been filed by respondents 1 and 2 in this Writ Petition. In paragraph 2 of the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that the K.S.E.B had opted to adopt Multi -Circuit towers with available designs considering the stringent right of way issues and the consequential delay for implementation of the projects. Further it is stated thereunder that in power system point of view it would always be preferable to construct independent Double circuit lines considering its reliability, security and maintainability. As already noticed hereinbefore, the lines to be drawn are 220 KV Multi-Circuit transmission lines. That apart, in paragraph 5 to 8 therein, the respondents have stated the reasons for holding the view that installation of a single taller tower is absolutely W.P.(C) NO.16595/2010 4 unfeasible. The reasons therefor, have been elaborately described thereunder.
5. In view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition I do not think it necessary to go into all such matters and the rival contentions. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the additional counter affidavit. For the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this case, it is relevant to refer to the following portions from the said reply statement:-
"The falsity of the contention of the K.S.E.B is evident from the installation of 220 double crossing effecting by them at Myloor near Muvattupuzha (about 7 kilometeres from the Muvattupuzha town) wherein a 220 high tension K.V line lower Periyar to Brahmapuram. Therein single multi-circuit tower had been used by the K.S.E.B for drawing the line at the crossing area. The technical backup had been used by the K.S.E.B in Myloor can be used in the petitioner's property also. As also the design wing after effecting all kind of testing and clearance in respect of the technical feasibility of the tower narrated by respondents in paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of the additional W.P.(C) NO.16595/2010 5 counter affidavit had used a huge multi-circuit tower at Brahmapuram having 14 lines and the same system of tower can be used at petitioner's property."
6. The above extracted portion would reveal that at least in two places, namely, one at Myloor near Muvattupuzha and another at Brahmapuram, the KSEB has erected Single Multi-circuit tower for installation of 220 KV double crossing. According to the petitioner, the double crossing at Myloor near Muvattupuzha is that of 220 high tension line passing from one Idukki to Mysore and 220 KV line lower Periyar to Brahmapuram. Having installed a Single Multi-circuit tower for the said double crossing, the respondents cannot canvass the position of impossibility as relates erection of a Single Taller Tower for double crossing of 220 KV lines, it is submitted. Relying on the same, the petitioner contends that such a technical back up could be used by the KSEB to avert an extensive damage to his property. In short, according to him, if such a technical back up is employed by the Kerala State Electricity Board as has been used by the Power Grid Corporation for drawing line using huge Multi-circuit tower, a considerable portion of the petitioner's property could be saved as otherwise considerable extent would be W.P.(C) NO.16595/2010 6 rendered useless and purposeless. As already noticed hereinbefore, a similar matter was considered by this Court in W.P.(C).NO. 17166/2010. In fact, the grievance of the petitioner therein was also with respect to the drawing of line from Pallikkara to Brahmapuram through the same route. After considering the rival contentions, this Court after holding that private interest should give way to the public interest, directed the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam, the third respondent herein to look into the grievance of the petitioner and the alternative route suggested by him after affording an opportunity to the said petitioner and also the concerned officials of the KSEB. I am of the view that even while upholding public interest involved in this case, such an endevour can be made in this case also to examine the feasibility of erecting a Single Multi-circuit tower as has been done at Myloor near Muvattupuzha and Brahmapuram. Considering the contention of the petitioner that the Power Grid Corporation has already installed such a Single Multi-circuit tower and that the evacuation of power has to be made from the 400 KV sub-station to be constructed by the said Corporation, their advice and back up may help the respondent to resolve the issue. At any rate, the feasibility of erecting such a Single Multi-circuit tower has to be considered by the W.P.(C) NO.16595/2010 7 competent officers under the first respondent in the presence of the third respondent. In other words, it will only be proper for the third respondent to consider whether it is feasible to erect a Single Multi- circuit tower as has been done at Brahmapuram and again at Myloor near Muvattupuzha. Evidently, in case it is feasible, it will not involve change of alignment. The third respondent shall cause such an inspection by the competent officers of the first respondent in the presence of the third respondent with notice to the petitioner. Considering the importance of the matter, the third respondent is directed to take appropriate steps and consider the feasibility of the above proposal of the petitioner taking into account the above mentioned aspects expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that before such inspection, the petitioner shall be intimated the date and time of inspection at least three days in advance. It is also made clear that the question to be reconsidered by the third respondent is whether instead of two towers at points E and E1 in the property of the petitioner, whether a Single Multi-circuit tower could be erected as part of the proposed route from Pallikkara to Brahmapuram. Needless to say that after such inspection and based on the report, the Additional District Magistrate has to pass fresh orders in that regard. W.P.(C) NO.16595/2010 8 Ext.P7 is interfered with only to the above extent. The second respondent shall make available a copy of this judgment to the third respondent to expedite the matter. Erection of tower and drawing of lines over the property of the petitioner shall be subject to the fresh order to be passed by the third respondent.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.16595/2010 9 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.16595/2010 10