Kerala High Court
Leela Allen vs Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala ... on 12 April, 2023
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945
WA NO. 305 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 42477/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 LEELA ALLEN,
AGED 72 YEARS
W/O. . LATE ALLEN GEORGE, RESIDING AT PADINJARE
PUTHENVEEDU, PUNNAMOODU, KOODAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN
- 689693
2 DADU GEORGE,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. LATE PRINCELY GEORGE, PRINCELY COTTAGE, KOODAL P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689693
BY ADVS.ARUN SAMUEL & JITHIN BABU A
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD - KSEB,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. LTD.,
TRANSGRID, TC SUB DIVISION, 110 KV SUB STATION COMPLEX,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY,
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689645
BY ADV B.PREMOD
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
W.A. No. 305 of 2023
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P., JJ
............................................................
W.A. No. 305 of 2023
.................................................................
Dated this the 12th day of April 2023
JUDGMENT
Mohammed Nias.C.P. J.
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgement of the learned Single Judge in W.P.C. No. 42477 of 2022 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging Ext. P19 order dated 19-12- 2022 of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Pathanamthitta, accepting the routes suggested by the Kerala Electricity Board and rejecting the alternate route suggested by the appellant.
2. A notice dated 24-09-2021 was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity informing the appellants that for improving the electricity supply in the Pathanamthitta District, as a part of the Transgrid 2.0 Sabariline package scheme, the Board had commenced the construction of Pathanamthitta-Koodalpadam 220/110 KV multi-circuit/multi volt/double circuit line, and that the said line of 190 metres will be passing over the property of the petitioners and for that purpose, a tower at location No. KP 13 was required to be erected 3 W.A. No. 305 of 2023 in the property of petitioner No. 1 and a tower at location No. KP 12 in the property of petitioner No. 2. Since the petitioners objected, the matter was referred to the Additional District Magistrate, who by order dated 19-05-2022, permitted the Board to draw the line through the property of the petitioners by installing the towers. The aforementioned order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 17933 of 2022 wherein by Ext. P6 judgment dated 2-6-2022, the third respondent was directed to reconsider the issue as there was no proper adjudication. After the above direction, Ext. P19 order was passed which was impugned in the writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge who considered the writ petition found that the third respondent had inspected the site and based on the contentions of the Board that the alternate way suggested by the petitioner is circuitous and found that special wing was constituted who had submitted a detailed objection for both and technical and financial feasibility which was approved which was approved by an expert team. It is only thereafter that the administrative and technical sanction were accorded. Still further, the said report was examined by the Infrastructure Board as well and it was after all these procedures, the Government has issued a gazette notification dated 25-08-2020 authorising the Board for construction and maintenance of the line by entering into the properties as per Section 10 and 11 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as part of the construction activities of transgrid 4 W.A. No. 305 of 2023 2.0 project. It is specifically found that the route suggested by the complainant was through the thickly populated area and that it did not contain the safety measures.
4. The report of the District Electrical Inspector, to the effect that the building and the houses of the complainant are situated far away from the recommended site and at a distance more than what is prescribed as per Regulation 61 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulation, 2010 was considered by the ADM in its order dated 19-12-2022. Learned Single thus held that the ADM had considered the pros and cons threadbare, declined interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and rejected the Writ Petition.
5. Before us, the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the appellants mainly contented that the alternate route suggested by them was feasible. It is his further submission that the alternate route suggested by the appellants alternate route with Google map was produced as Ext. P10 had two options, Option No.1 refers to the line from Contour Jungle Resort to the Koodal Sub Station, having a distance of only 8.10 Km. Option 2 refers to the line from Padam bear Al-Abi auditorium to the Koodal Sub Station, the distance of which has only 14.94 km.
5W.A. No. 305 of 2023
6. The learned Senior Counsel submits that despite the earlier judgment, Ext. P16, ADM did not consider the alternate routes properly and the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the suggestion in the correct perspective.
7. We had passed an order on 20-3-2023 to produce the sketch showing the alignment of the proposed line through the property of the appellant. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf on respondents 1 and 2 which details the reason why the alternate route suggested by the appellants was not acceptable to the Board. As regards option 1, it is stated that the exact starting point and the tapping point of the 220 KV lines are not marked in the google map and that while comparing the straight line (area distance only) marked the unscaled google map as Option 1, the Board had to gather that the petitioners had meant to suggest the construction of 220 KV DC line from Koodal Sub Station to an unspecified location of Sabarigiri-Edamon line. This, according to the Board, is against the basic technical aspect which is to be considered while fixing the alignment of an Extra High Voltage line. As for considering the topography and profile of the route suggested, no extra high voltage line can be constructed in straight line as marked in the drawing. The petitioners were also silent about the location where the crossing of the new 220KV DC line is possible with the existing 400KV Thirunelveli-Kochi line passing nearer to the Substation by maintaining the statutory clearance as per CEA Regulations, 2010. 6 W.A. No. 305 of 2023 Since both the lines should be crossed at 90 degree with maximum clearance (6.1M) in order to avoid magnetic interference and induction, these safety aspects cannot be attained if Option No. 1 is considered. Accordingly the Board found that the above proposal is more harmful to the environment as it needs the removal of natural forest whereas the alignment fixed by the Board is only passing through the revenue land consisting of rubber plantations and agricultural land with comparatively less inhabitants. On this ground, Option No. 1 suggested by the appellant was found to be not feasible reckoning the technical and safety standards.
8. Regarding Option 2, Board found that the same is also not based on any feasibility study.
"The proposal is not mentioning the exact locations where the new line connecting with existing/proposed Lines of KSEBL. As per the alingment fixed by KSEBL, the total length of the line from Koodal Substation to Padam tapping location is approximately 11.85 Km including both 3.59Km MCMV line using existing Right of way and 8.25 Km 220KV DC line along new Right of way as shown in Ext. D7. But as per the alternate proposal Option-2 in Ext. P17, the distance of new line shown is 14.7 Km entirely through new Right of Way, which is approximately 2.85 km more than that proposed by KSEBL. Option-2 proposed by the petitioners/appellants is a technically impossible option as it is proposed to connect a higher voltage 220KV Double circuit line from Padom directly to the existing lover Voltage 7 W.A. No. 305 of 2023 110KV Punalur Koodal Double circuit line at Koodal end. The length of the proposed line in Option - 2 will increase further while reckoning the length of 220/110KV MCMV line to be constructed from Koodal Substation to the receiving point of 220KV Double Circuit line in existing Koodal-Punalur 110KV line. Similarly, as mentioned in option-1, the distance marked in the unscaled Google map will not be the actual alignment and distance of the line that will be fixed on the basis of actual survey and technical studies. As option-1 the petitioners are silent about the location where the crossing of the new 220KV DC line is possible with the existing 400KV Thirunelveli-Kochi line proposed in the alignment of Option-2, by maintain the statutory clearance as per CEA Regulations 2010.
The petitioners are suggesting two crossing points without specifying the exact locations and any scientific study. The electrical safety clearances between two extra high voltage lines of different Voltage levels which would cross each other can be ascertained only on the basis of detailed profile survey of the alignment of both the lines. On the basis of detailed profile survey, location between towers TVL- COK/D-074& TVL-COK-075 of 400 KV Thirunelveli-Kochi line is found the ideal location for crossing both new 220 KV DC line and 400 KV line by maintaining the statutory electrical clearances. Accordingly, the existing alignment is fixed by KSEBL. On the contrary, the petitioners are suggesting the alternate routes and crossing locations by speculations relying only on Google maps and photographs which are not the scientific methods for fixing the alignment of a transmission line"
On a reading of the above it is clear that the alignment fixed by 8 W.A. No. 305 of 2023 the Board is the shortest feasible and technical and economical and environmentally advantageous option than the alternate routes suggested by the appellants. A reading of the counter also shows that the alternate routes suggested are impractical without any scientific basis and that they are opposed to technical standards, rules and regulations. Further, the proposed routes would pass through thick residential areas and Koodal township. Option No. 1 as stated above will also require removal of natural forests. In such circumstances, in the absence of anything to the contra, we cannot find any fault in the order of the Additional District Magistrate. It is trite that in issues involving technical aspects, the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon them is normally beyond the domain of the Courts and they must defer to the understanding and appreciation of the technical aspects by the experts, while exercising powers of judicial review The learned Judge was right in upholding the order in the absence of anything to suggest or any illegality in Ext. P19. The judgment of the learned Single Judge calls for no interference and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE ani/ /true copy/ 9 W.A. No. 305 of 2023 APPENDIX OF WA 305/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ALTERNATE ROUTES.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES FIELD BOOK SKETCH 3 Nos sketch showing alignment of 220 KV double circuit line from Padam to Koodal passing through the properties of the Appellants based on the field book sketch of Kalanjoor Village ANNEXURE R1 b The true copy of the approved line rout ANNEXURE R1 c The true copy of the alternate route originally proposed by the appellants ANNEXURE R1 a The true copy of the objection filed before the Additional District Magistrate ANNEXURE R1 d True copy of the additional routes suggested by the petitioners/appellants as option 1 and option 2 ANNEXURE R1 e The true copy of the single line diagram of the proposed TransGrid-2.0 Project, Sabari Lines and Substation Package