The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the District Magistrate, Kottayam on 11.4.2014 inter alia observing that no change in alignment is possible with reference to alignment already fixed for drawing of 110 KV line from Kanjirappilly to Erumeli. The impugned order is passed pursuant to an objection raised by certain land owners, after the judgment dated 16.7.2013 in W.P.(C) No.20896 of 2011 and connected cases. The petitioner filed objections and suggested that if a slight shifting is being made to the tower proposed to be erected, it will be advantageous to his other property, by which, the respondent authorities will not suffer any loss at all. That apart, if the power line in front of the property belonging to him is shifted to the opposite side, the line will be drawn in a straight line and that it will affect only the property belonging to one Rajan Chalakuzhy and would not affect any other person as such. It is contended that, the District Magistrate did not consider the aforesaid matters while conducting enquiry under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit have been filed by KSEB inter alia contending that change in alignment on the suggestion made by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
3. By an interim order dated 16.7.2014, this Court directed the District Magistrate to conduct an inspection in the light of the disputed questions which were involved in the matter and directed the District Magistrate to submit a report after considering the facts and circumstances in respect of the proposed alteration made by the petitioner. The District Collector has filed a report, which is produced along with a memo dated 21.8.2014. In the said report, the District Collector after having narrated the relevant features of the present alignment as well as the proposed alignment made by the petitioner, listed his findings as under :-
“1. There is a level difference between location “J” and the alternate location proposed by the petitioner which requires statutory clearance as per regulations 2010 and As per the regulation 58(4) of the regulations 2010 ground clearance has to be more than 6.1 metres and which is not available at the moment.
2. The alignment of the electricity line will change at least up to an extent between the next towers both the sides.
3. Delay each day is causing huge loss to exchequer and denying of a public facility to the people.
4. The alteration in alignment between two nearest towers to location J both the sides will affect landowners more or less in area under electricity line in comparison to the current alignment which may invite new issues for already settled issues.
5. As per the regulations 2010, current alignment poses no threat to house and property of the petitioner.”
The District Collector also considered the technical feasibility and observed as under :-
“I do not believe that such a change is technically impossible but it requires redesigning of the part of project and will certainly cause extra financial burden on exchequer and delay in the implementation of the project for a larger public benefit. When any agency of government designs a project, the very core duty of it is to provide larger public benefit with minimum disturbance to the public and within the minimum financial burden on the exchequer. Technical feasibility of a project requires consideration of these factors also. In the present case the project was designed for a larger public benefit and due to protest from some quarters was redesigned with new alignment and after addressing all the concerns of all parties except one as per the direction of Hon. High Court of Kerala.
Assessing purely on the basis of technical aspects the demand of petitioner is possible to implement with required technical changes to the correct and suitable current alignment and location and specification of towers but when it comes to feasibility it will require re-designing of the part of the project and lead to delay in project, extra burden to exchequer, denying of a public facility to people and may result in additional protest and issues which may result in the lagging of the project. It cannot be said feasible for a project which has got all the issues disposed except one. In the larger public interest such a disturbance to project is not feasible.”
Finally in the conclusion, it is observed as under :-
“As per the provisions of the regulations 2010, I do not see any violations of regulations to hurt the petitioner or his property or building. The case of the petitioner is the only pending for settlement and all other cases are settled, it means that the current alignment is almost accepted in the locality. Any change to the project in the location concerned may invite further issues, protest form landowners to the project which will result in the lagging of the project and such delay will be financial burden on exchequer and denying of a public facility to people believe that in public interest the demand of petitioner is not acceptable.”
A perusal of the report by the District Collector clearly indicates that the entire matter has again seen looked into, verified, studied and evaluated. He has formed an opinion that any change to the alignment may invite further issues, which will again lag the project, causing financial burden to the exchequer and would amount to denial of public facility to the people. It is a well settled principle of law that private interest should give way to public interest. The findings enlisted as 1 to 5 above would clearly show that the current alignment is feasible to the society at large and this property has been earmarked for the last several years. There has been several allegations with regard to the fixation of alignment and now, the dispute of the petitioner alone survives. When an alignment has been fixed by a competent authority like KSEB in consultation with experts in the field and the District Magistrate has considered the objection in terms of Section 10(d) of the Act, I do not find it necessary to order any further enquiry in regard to the proposal made by the petitioner. This Court has again called for a report from the District Collector, which is also on record.
4. In the light of the fact that the petitioner's only claim was that his proposal was not considered in Ext.P6 order, the said issue no longer survives due to the availability of District Magistrate's report mentioned above.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I do not think that anything survives to be considered in this writ petition and there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P6.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
Jvt