Kerala High Court
Meena Alias Preetha vs Additional District Magistrate on 5 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 1210
Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No.27114 of 2017
PETITIONER:
MEENA ALIAS PREETHA
D/O LATE RAVINDRANATH MENON, AGED 46 YEARS,
THUNDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHIKKULANGARA,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513.
BY ADV. KUM.NIHARIKA HEMA RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LIMITED, MANNAM POST, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-683 513.
BY ADVS.
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SRI.S.GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.04.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C)Nos.29110 & 29175 of 2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.27114/2017 & conn. cases 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No.29110 of 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 PRAMOD.V
AGED 41 YEARS, THANTHONIKKAL VEEDU,
NANTHIATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR P.O., PIN-683513.
2 N.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN ELAYIDAM,
73 YEARS, RETIRED MUNICIPALITY EMPLOYEE, ASWATHI,
VIRAD ROAD, KIZHAKKEPURAM (VAZHIKULANGARA), NORTH
PARAVUR P.O., PIN-683513.
3 K.M.MATHAI
65 YEARS, RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT, KACHAPPILLY,
"LIYA GARDEN", VIRAD ROAD, KIZHAKKEPURAM
(VAZHIKULANGARA), NORTH PARAVUR P.O., PIN-683513.
4 BABU M.L.
44 YEARS, MEPPILLIPARAMBIL, KEDAMANGALAM,
NORTH PARAVUR P.O., PIN-683513.
5 D.SATHEESH KUMAR
45 YEARS, MAKKA PARAMBIL, VAZHIKULANGARA,
NORTH PARAVUR P.O., PIN-683513.
6 SHYAMALA RAMACHANDRAN
60 YEARS, SREE LAKSHMI, ASARI LANE, MONASTRY ROAD,
KOCHI-682011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.RAMNATH
SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE
SMT.S.SANDHYA
SRI.BEPIN PAUL
SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL)
SRI.SHALU VARGHESE
W.P.(C) No.27114/2017 & conn. cases 3
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030.
2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, KSEB, MANNOM P.O.,
NORTH PARAVUR, PIN-683520.
3 BHARGAVAN NAIR
VELLACHERIL HOUSE, NANTHIATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR,
PIN-683513.
4 K.V.RAMAKRISHNAN
MANAGER, SN ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, KEDAMANGALAM,
NORTH PARAVUR, PIN-683513.
5 K.G.RAJEEV,
110 KV LINE ACTION COUNCIL CHAIRMAN,
KUPPAYIL HOUSE, KAITHARAM P.O., N.PARAVUR,
PIN-683519.
6 SUSEELA
W/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN, NIKATHIL (H),
DISPENSARY STOP, CHERAI, PIN-683514.
7 SIJU N.S.
S/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN, NIKATHIL (H), DISPENSARY
STOP, CHERAI, PIN-683514.
8 NISHA
(D/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN), W/O.NARAYANAN KUTTY,
ANCHALASERY (H), KOTTUVALLY, PIN-683513.
ADDL. UNION OF INDIA,
R9. MINISTRY OF POWER, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI-110004, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
(ADDITIONAL R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
08/12/2017 IN IA 19797/17).
BY ADVS.
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.ISAC SANJAY
W.P.(C) No.27114/2017 & conn. cases 4
SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC
SRI.M.T.AJITH
SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR
SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SRI.P.J.JOSEPH
SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE
SRI.S.GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.04.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C)Nos.27114 & 29175 of 2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.27114/2017 & conn. cases 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No.29175 of 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 BHARGAVAN NAIR
AGED 67, S/O SREEDHARAN NAIR, VELLACHERIL HOUSE,
NANDHYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.
2 HARIHARAN PILLAI
AGED 71, S/O P G NARAYANANKUTTY PILLA,
VEENUS,NANDHYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.
3 THRESSIAMMA CHACKO
AGED 65, W/O CHACKO, NANDHYATTUKUNNAM,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
OFFICE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.
2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, KSEB, MANNAM, P O NORTH
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM - 683513.
3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SUB STATION SUB DIVISION, KURUMASSERY, KSEB,
MANNAM P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683520.
BY ADVS.
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SRI.P.M MANOJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.04.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C)Nos.27114 & 29110 OF 2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
---------------------------------
W.P. (C) Nos.27114, 29110 &
29175 of 2017
---------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2019
J U D G M E N T
These cases are filed by the land owners aggrieved by the orders of the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam, under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, the Act). I have consolidated all these cases for disposal by this common judgment for the reason that the dispute arose out of drawing 110 KV electricity supply line in the stretch of Mannom-Cherai, though each of the writ petitions require separate consideration as well on factual matters. I shall deal with the cases on specific factual matters separately in this judgment.
2. The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) decided to draw 110 KV double circuit line from Mannom to Cherai sub station. 110 KV sub station is sanctioned at Cherai. The administrative sanction was issued on 21.04.1999. The final line route was W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 7 approved in the year 2008. Initially the cost was estimated at Rs.7,80,000/-. As on today, the cost is estimated at Rs.30.47 crores. The number of tower to be commissioned by April 2019 is 32. This is the factual background of challenge made in all these writ petitions.
3. W.P.(C) No.29110 of 2017 was filed by one Pramod V and others. That writ petition was filed on behalf of 116 affected persons. Court fee was also paid accordingly. Sri.M.P Ramnath leaded the argument on behalf of the petitioners. In principal, he raised three grounds of challenge. One is pointing out with respect to the existing line. He would argue that an upgradation would save money and power and also would ultimately result in avoiding drawing of line through the petitioners' property. Learned counsel also argued that there is no difficulty to draw the line through underground in the light of advancement of technology. The third argument is precisely on the availability of alternative route. Learned counsel points out the alternative route and argued that in order to save the encroachers of the W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 8 Government land in the alternative route, the KSEB had decided to draw line through the present route which is under challenge in this writ petition. This alternative route is through Cheriyappilly-Kundekkavu canal maintained by the Minor Irrigation Department. According to the learned counsel, the width of canal has been reduced due to encroachment and if the encroachments are removed, the impact of drawing of line through residential area can be reduced. Learned counsel particularly placed reliance on Regulation 86 to 88 of Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standards for Construction of Electrical Plants and Electric Lines) Regulations, 2010. Regulation 88 (3) says that line routing should avoid large habitations, and densely populated areas.
4. W.P.(C) 29175 of 2017 was filed challenging the orders of the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Act. It appears that the petitioners have raised objection in regard to drawing of line based on the present route stating that large number of trees would have to be cut and removed. The petitioners suggested for an alternative W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 9 route. That objection was overruled in the impugned orders.
5. W.P.(C) 27114 of 2017 was filed challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Act. The petitioner's proposal for alternative route was considered. The petitioner also filed a review petition stating that the Additional District Magistrate committed a patent error in finding that the petitioner had not consented to the alternative route plan. In the property belonged to the petitioner, a tower was placed on the side of the residential building. She appears to have proposed shifting it to further north so as to save her residential building. The petitioner appears to have been maintaining different plants in this particular area as habitat. She appears to be more concerned in protecting her plants which includes medicinal plants as well. The petitioner also submitted that the property is also frequented by migratory birds as well. There exists three 'Kavus' (sacred groves) in the property. It appears that initially a route was approved without W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 10 affecting the Kavus. The petitioner has a case that if the alignment is shifted to further north of her property, it would save her residential building and the 'Kavus'. This proposal was, according to the petitioner, wrongly found in the order that the petitioner has not agreed for such proposal. This is how a review petition was filed before the Additional District Magistrate.
6. This Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, has limited jurisdiction in regard to the disputed questions on facts. The Electricity Board is an expert body. It is for the Board to formulate the route in a manner expedient to them. The scope of judicial review, therefore, exists on narrow parameters. The consideration of the objections by the Additional District Magistrate is based on statutory provisions. Section 10 of the Act confers power on the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. Section 10(d) of the Act states that the power conferred on the telegraph authority has to be exercised with a discretion causing least damage as possible. The W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 11 power conferred upon the District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Act is to decide the objections when drawing of line is resisted or obstructed. This power essentially is to find out whether drawing of line was in tune with the mandate under Section 10(d) of the Act. The scope of enquiry by the District Magistrate, therefore, confined to finding out the impact of drawing of line over the property of the persons who are obstructing to it. The District Magistrate, therefore, has to evaluate all the options generated before him to satisfy himself that the approved route would cause least damage among the options.
7. The petitioners had approached this Court in an earlier round of litigations in various writ petitions. This Court, noting that there was no proper hearing on the objections on feasibility report, directed the Additional District Magistrate for a de nova consideration. It was in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.4844 of 2011 and connected matter. In another writ petition, W.P(C) No.5259 of 2011, this Court appears to have appointed an Advocate W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 12 Commissioner. In the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Advocate Commissioner filed a detailed report. The Additional District Magistrate adverted to the report while considering the objections of the petitioners before passing the impugned orders.
8. Now I shall advert to the orders impugned in W.P.(C) Nos.29110 and 29175 of 2017. The orders impugned in these writ petitions are one and the same. The Additional District Magistrate, after adverting to the rival contentions and also the commission report, permitted the Board to construct 110 KV EHT line from Mannon to Cherai through the original route till it reaches at Location 15 observing that it is technically and economically feasible. It was also observed that the alternative route suggested by the petitioners is not technically feasible. However, it appears that some slight deviation was made to avoid the crossing of 110 KV EHT line through the middle of the playground of S.N Arts & Science College, Kedamangalam. The court W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 13 cannot interfere with the finding on facts unless such finding on facts is perverse and erroneous on the face of record. This Court is not an appellate authority to form a different opinion based on the materials on record. The Commissioner did not point out any alternative route which is technically and economically feasible. Though there are certain allegations raised at the Bar pointing out that the Commissioner was prevented from examining alternative route by the officials of the KSEB, I find no materials to substantiate the above argument. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the line should be drawn through the banks of the canal is found untenable. This Court cannot upset such finding on facts.
9. The arguments raised by the learned counsel, Sri.M.P.Ramnath, suggesting upgradation of existing lines and drawing line through underground, are all matters on which a policy decision has to be taken by the Board. The Board is an expert body. In what manner they should draw the line would depend upon many factors including the financial obligations. W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 14 Apart from that, in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, the Board had stated the reasons for their inability to accept such proposal. Therefore, this Court cannot consider those objections.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27114 of 2017, Ms.Niharika Hema Raj, very strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner. She narrated the emotional attachments of the petitioner with her property and submitted that her suggestion for alternative route was not considered by the Additional District Magistrate. It is seen from the impugned order that the Additional District Magistrate directed the Board to find out the possibility of alternative route suggested by the petitioner. It is also seen that the Additional District Magistrate had recorded the submissions of the petitioner as follows:
"The respondent replied that she is not satisfied with the present suggestion of the KSEB for erecting tower on the northern portion of her property, since the 'kavu', situated in this area will be completely damaged due to W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 15 erection of tower. Respondent further submitted that the objection is not for saving her house or property, but for protecting the nature and hence requested to shift the tower towards the northern side of her property".
11. Aggrieved by the above observations and findings, the writ petitioner filed a review. The review was filed as early as on 29.05.2017. Learned counsel argued that the Additional District Magistrate erroneously observed that the petitioner's interest is to protect the 'Kavus' and not the house. The alternative suggestion mooted by the writ petitioner would have been feasible if it was pointed out then and there. The writ petition was filed in the year 2017. There was no interim orders in this matter. When this matter was taken up for hearing, it is submitted that the line is almost complete except for erecting tower in the writ petitioner's property and any further deviation would result in delaying the commission of project as well as heavy loss to the Board. The petitioner could have pressed for an alternative line at the very beginning of the writ petition itself. Once a line is almost drawn, it may not be possible for this Court to direct the W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 16 Board to shift the line ignoring the impact that likely to arise consequent upon such direction. However, nothing prevents the petitioner from seeking shifting of line in appropriate manner. In the light of the discussions as above, I find no merit in these writ petitions.
These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 17 APPENDIX OF WP(C)No.27114/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: DATED NIL TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT TITLED "PLANT DIVERSITY OF SANTHIVANAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2: DATED 15.2.2013 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.5259 OF 201.
EXHIBIT P3: DATED .....11.2016- TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REPORT.
EXHIBIT P4: DATED 10.2.2017 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P5: DATED 5.9.2013 - TRUE COPY OF PLAN TITLED PROPOSED DEVIATION FROM L6 TO L8A IN CONNECTION WITH DISPUTE AT SANTHIVANAM AS DIRECTED BY HONOURABLE ADM, ERNAKULAM PROVIDED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P6 DATED 15.4.2017-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO.K.DIS.62623/2013/M5.
EXHIBIT P7: DATED 29.5.2017-TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P8: DATED 16.6.2017-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DISMISSING THE REVIEW PETITION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AE/TCS/CHERAI/18-19/62 SENT BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB LTD., CHERAI.
EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOGRAPH DATED 20/03/2019 TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER OF THE PIT DUG IN THE PROPERTY.W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 18
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOGRAPH DATED 20/03/2019 TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING A WIDER VIEW OF THE PIT DUG IN THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P12 LETTER DATED 20/03/2019 BY THE SECRETARY, KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P13 SKETCH WITH THE CORRECT POSITIONS OF KAVUS MARKED OUT BY THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.13597/2011/M5 DATED 28/04/2017 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
True Copy P.S to Judge smp W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 19 APPENDIX OF WP(C)No.29110/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SIGNED BY RESIDENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CENTRAL MINISTER SRI.K.V.THOMAS AT A PUBLIC MEETING AT PARAVUR ON 12-12- 2009.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17- 12-2009 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 AND 3RD RESPONDENT REPRESENTING THE PERSONS IN THE AREA, TO THE KSEB OFFICIALS, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION DT 12-
12-2009 GIVEN TO THE CENTRAL MINISTER APPENDED HEREWITH.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14-12- 2009 FILED BY VIRAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION BEFORE HON'BLE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, KERALA STATE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-02-2010 OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)3455/2010.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22-02-2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (KSEB) BEFORE THE ADM (1ST RESPONDENT).
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 24-03-2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS THROUGH COUNSEL ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE LIST OF HOUSES AFFECTED IN KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYATH AND EZHIKKARA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FEASIBILITY REPORT DATED 11-11-2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADM ALONG WITH THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ORIGINAL ROUTE AND NEW ROUTE (ALTERNATE ROUTE). W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 20 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 08-01- 2011 TO EXHIBIT P7 FEASIBILITY REPORT, BEFORE THE ADM.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER SUPPOSED TO BE DATED 24-01-2011 ISSUED BY THE ADM IN PROCEEDING NO.K.DIS/12620/2010/M5 RECEIVED ON 07- 02-2011, SEEN POSTED FROM COLLECTORATE-KAKKANAD P.O. ON 04-02- 2011.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 15-02-2013 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP(C)NO.5259 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 17-12-2013 WITH REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF A SUGGESTED MARSHY/WETLAND ROUTE, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADM.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04-07-2014 IN WP(C)NO.16080 OF 2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENTIRE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 23-06-2016 SUBMITTED BY ADV DEEPU K.V. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 19-07-2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS THROUGH COUNSEL TO THE EXT P13 COMMISSION REPORT. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 04-08-2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO THE COMMISSION REPORT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 21 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SKETCHES ALONG WITH LIST OF HOUSES GIVEN TO THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER FOR INSPECTION BY KSEB THE 2ND RESPONDENT, IN TWO PARTS WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 20- 08-2013 AND 05-10-2013, SUPPOSED TO BE PERTAINING TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED ROUTE.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SKETCHES ALONG WITH LIST OF HOUSES GIVEN TO THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER FOR INSPECTION BY THE KSEB THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH LETTER DT 11-11-2013 SUPPOSED TO BE IN RESPECT OF THE ALTERNATE SUGGESTED ROUTE.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REPORT DT 09-11-2016, FILED BY ADV. DEEPU K.V. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DT 16-03-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REPORT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16-03-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN REQUIRING DIRECTION TO INCLUDE THE HOUSES STATED THEREIN, WHICH THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER HAS AVOIDED REPORTING UNDER ILLEGAL PRESSURE FROM KSEB, AS FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P21 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM SUBMISSIONS DATED 19-07-2016, ALONG WITH THE THREE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED THEREWITH AS APPENDIX 1 TO 3.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 04-08-2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES PRODUCED THEREWITH BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 22EXHIBIT P23 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN THE HEARING ON 29-03-2017 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT APPENDED THERETO.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 16- 03-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 05-12-2016 GIVEN BY THE ASST.ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, PARAVUR, TO THE 2ND PETITIONER SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE CHERIAPILLI KUNDEKAVU CANAL. EXHIBIT P25 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF A ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED DATED 21-08-2017 TO SHOW THE ROUTE THROUGH WHICH UNDER GROUND CABLE FOR THE 110KV LINE, FROM MANNAM SUB STATION TO TOWER POINT L15.
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03-04-2017 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR.
EXHIBIT P27 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19- 04-2017 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ELECTRICAL OFFICER TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P28 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT REGULATIONS-REGULATIONS 86 TO 88 THE CENTRAL ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRICAL PLANS AND ELECTRIC LINES) REGULATIONS 2010.
EXHIBIT P29 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19-07-2016 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING TO DIRECT THE KSEB TO FURNISH ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED.
EXHIBIT P30 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IMPROPER COUNTER AND VAGUE ANSWERS GIVEN DT 28-07-2016 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EXT P29.
W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 23EXHIBIT P31 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER 28-04-2017 IN PROCEEDING NO.K.DIS/13597/2011/M5 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P32 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DT 17-05- 2017 ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT REQUESTING FOR REPORT AND SKETCH REFERRED TO AS ITEM-10 IN EXT P31 ORDER, BY REGISTERED POST ON 18- 05-2017 WITH THE POSTAL REGISTRATION RECEIPT AFFIXED THEREUPON.
EXHIBIT P33 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT 06-06- 2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COPY OF A LETTER DT 24-12- 2016 WITH A SKETCH SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P34 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SEEN DT 12-04-2017 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EXT P23 AND COPY TO PETITIONER'S COUNSEL HEREIN SENT BY REGISTERED POST ON 22-04-2017 ALONG WITH THE REGISTERED POST COVER.
EXHIBIT P35 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF POWER DATED 03/12/2014. EXHIBIT P36 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWS PAPER CUTTING, COCHIN EDITION, DATED 06/07/2018.
EXHIBIT P37 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 16/08/2017 BEARING REFERENCE NO.DB- 20/17-18/183 FILED BY THE KSEBL BEFORE THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IN PROCEEDING NO.HRMP NO.6316/17/EKM AND HRMP NO.7618/17/EKM OF HARIHARAN PILLAI OF NANDHYATTUKUNNAM.
W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 24EXHIBIT P38 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/01/2019 BEARING NO.AE/TCS/CHERAI/1819/60 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT KSEB TO THE 6TH PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION AND RECEIVED BY HER ON 18/01/2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 F EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.H.R.M.P.9/2010/E2 OF THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNICATION DATED 05/01/2010.
EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2013. EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28/07/2016. EXHIBIT R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 27/08/2016. EXHIBIT R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29/03/2017. EXHIBIT R2(f) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29/03/2017. EXHIBIT R2(g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28/07/2016. EXHIBIT R2(h) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY/COMMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 27/08/2016.
EXHIBIT R2(i) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12/04/2017. EXHIBIT R2(j) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29/03/2017. EXHIBIT R2(k) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.17659/2016 DATED 20/05/2016. W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 25 EXHIBIT R2(l) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIGINAL ROUTE, ALTERNATE ROUTE AND DEVIATED ROUTE IN TERMS OF EXT.P31.
True Copy P.S to Judge smp W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 26 APPENDIX OF WP(C) No.29175/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2010.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 11.11.2010. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.2011. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.5259 OF 2011 DATED 15.2.2013.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER OF DIFFERENT DATES.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W P (C) NO.16080 OF 2014 DATED 4.7.2014. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ONE K MATHAI AND REPLY HE GETS DATED 19.4.2017.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE SECOND PETITIONER WITH HIS REQUEST AND SKETCH DATED 31.5.2017.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION FILED AS W P (C) NO.17659 OF 2016, DATED 17.5.2016 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 6.6.2017 WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE BOARD OFFICIALS DATED 9.9.2016 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) Nos.27114/2017 & conn. cases 27EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.4.2017.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN THE CASE OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 7.7.2017 IN THE CASE OF THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 22.7.2017. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.17659/2016 DATED 20/05/2016.
True Copy P.S to Judge smp