K. Sivadasan and K. P. Kamala v. The Special Tahsildar (LA), National Highways, Thalassery; The District Collector, Kannur; Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd; The General Manager, Southern Railway; State of Kerala; Administrator and Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Mini Civil Station, Thalassery

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 41320 of 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 K.SIVADASAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, 'ASWAS', NETTUR, THALASSERY 670 105, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **2 K.P KAMALA, W/O. LATE NARAYANAN, KAMALAYALAM', NETTUR POST, THALASSERY 670 105, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN & SRI.S.SHYAMKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY, MINI CIVIL STATION, THALASSERY 670 105,KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR 670 001.** - **3 THE ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD, M.V ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **4 THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI 600 003.** - **5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **6 THE ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), MINI CIVIL STATION, THALASSERY 670 105, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R4 SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY FOR R1,R2,R5 AND R6 SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R3** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:2:-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **======================= W.P.(C) No.41320 of 2018 =======================** Dated this the 6[th] day of February, 2019 ## **J U D G M E N T** The prayers in the above writ petition (Civil) are as follows: - _“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash Exhibit P12._ - _ii) call for the records leading to the issuance of the Ext.P8 proceedings under Section 16 of the Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and set aside the same._ - _iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to initiate steps under Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 on the alignment earlier submitted by the 3[rd] respondent for Railway Overbridge at Koduvally in Thalassery, till the direction in Ext.P7 Government order is complied with._ - _iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 3[rd] respondent to finalise the fresh alignment considering the alternate route suggested by the petitioner as evident from Exhibit P1._ - _v) to issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ 2. Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.V.Sohan, the learned State Attorney appearing for official respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6, Sri.Shyson P.Manguzha, the learned Standing Counsel for Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd appearing for R-3 and Sri.C.S.Dias, the learned **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:3:-** Standing Counsel for the Railways appearing for R-4. 3. The core of the factual elements required for the disposal of this case is that according to the petitioners, the 5[th] respondent -State Government has issued Ext.P-7 G.O.(Rt) No.1547/2018/PWD dated 01.10.2018, to conduct a fresh feasibility study and survey for considering the grievances of the aggrieved persons and then finalise the alignment after conducting such study. The petitioners would point out that on the very same day, on which Ext.P-7 was issued (viz., 01.10.2018), the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector has also issued Ex.P-8 proceedings dated 01.10.2018, wherein directions are issued to proceed further with the existing proceedings in question, which presumably appears to be without taking into account Ext.P-7 order issued by the 5[th] respondent-State Government on the same day. It is further seen that the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector may not have been aware on 01.10.2018 on which day he had issued Ext.P-8, about the issuance of Ext.P-7 Government Order on the very same day, by the 5[th] respondent-State Government. Later, the 5[th] respondent-State Government has issued Ext.P-11 Government letter No.PWD-5161/D2/2017-PWD dated 31.10.2018 addressed to the 3[rd] respondent- Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:4:-** Kerala Ltd.( _hereinafter referred to short as '3[rd] respondentCorporation'),_ and the petitioners informing that the Deputy Secretary to Government, Public Works Department will conduct a hearing once again at 12 noon on 07.11.2018 in respect of the above matter. Hearing in the matter pursuant to Ext.P-11 Government letter dated 31.10.2018 was also then conducted; but no formal orders were then passed by the 5[th] respondent-State Government. 4. Taking note of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court had rendered Ext.P-10 judgment dated 16.11.2018 in W.P.(C) No.35017 of 2018 filed by the petitioners herein, directing the 5[th] respondent-State Government to pass further orders in the matter referred to in Ext.P-11 herein, as to the steps to be taken by the 2[nd] respondent- District Collector in pursuance of the decision taken as per Ext.P-7 Government Order or any appropriate orders that may be taken by the Government in the matter. This Court held in Ext.P-10 judgment that the decision on the above matter or any further orders that may be passed by the 5[th] respondent-State Government in pursuance of the above said Government letter dated 31.10.2018 (Ext.P-11 herein), should be rendered without much delay preferably within a period of one month. It is thereafter that **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:5:-** the 5[th] respondent-State Government had issued the impugned Ext.P-12 Government letter No.PWD-D2/561/2017-PWD dated 27.11.2018. The petitioners would point out that Ext.P-12 is a Government letter issued by the officer holding the post of Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department and it only says that an agency was appointed to conduct social impact assessment under Section 4 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (New 2013 Act), and also an appraisal has also been conducted by the expert panel under Section 7 of the said New 2013 Act, and therefore acquisition proceedings were initiated in strict compliance with the statute governing the field and that it is also stated therein that the first proposal made by the petitioners does not have sufficient scope and then the second proposal would cause huge expenses and further stated therein at the alternate alignment proposed to the petitioners could not be effected as against the feasible and approved proposal. It is this proceedings at Ext.P-12 that is essentially under challenge in this Writ Petition (Civil). 5. The 5[th] respondent -State Government has filed a counter affidavit dated 14.01.2019 through the learned State Attorney. It is **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:6:-** stated in paragraph No.3 thereof that the Railway Overbridge at Koduvally was finalised as early as on 15.06.2013 after conducting extensive study by Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization(KITCO) as authorised by the 3[rd] respondentCorporation, as per Ext.R-5(a) alignment plan dated 15.06.2013 prepared by the KITCO that Ext.R-5(a) alignment plan was approved by the engineering team of the 4[th] respondent-Southern Railway as per Ext.R-5(b) letter dated 30.03.2016, after considering the safety and engineering aspects in conformity with the Indian Railways Bridge Manual that for facilities and project to approve the alignment, a total extent of property required are in possession of 22 persons is 63.95 Ares . Out of which, two persons are occupying puramboke property. The 1[st] petitioner, Sri. Sivadasan, is not having any property in the said alignment and the 2[nd] petitioner, Smt.K.P. Kamala is having an extent of 5.59 Ares of property. Out of the 22 land owners, including puramboke occupiers, 17 persons had submitted consent letter expressing no objection for surrendering the property for ROB. So that it is stated by the 2[nd] petitioner Smt. K.P. Kamala that she is also one such person who gave consent as per Ext.R-5(c). Further, it is also stated in paragraph No.14 **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:7:-** thereof, the 2[nd] petitioner did not want to acquire the entire property , and so only a portion of the building and property is acquired and that it will not affect the continued residence by the petitioner in the remaining portion of the property acquired and that the 2[nd] petitioner has consented for acquisition and therefore she is estopped from challenging the acquisition proceedings and also the present alignment. 6. That the matter was thereafter considered by the District Level Fair Compensation (DLFC) Committee convened by the 2[nd] respondent District Collector, Kannur on 18.12.2017 and the said meeting based on the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the 3[rd] respondent Collector had informed that the land value fixed adding other benefits as per the new Act comes to Rs.8,32,090/- per cent for garden land and Rs.7,48,880/- per cent for nancha land. The 3[rd] respondent Collector had also offered 70% increase from the market value and offered Rs.14,14,553/- per cent for garden land and Rs.12,73,096/- per cent for nancha land. The abovesaid 17 persons including the 2[nd] petitioner had agreed for the same and the remaining 5 persons refused to accept the proposed value offered in the DLFC meeting. Thereupon the 3[rd] respondent **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:8:-** District Collector had referred the matter before the State Level Empowered Committee, who in turn had taken a decision to proceed with the acquisition under the new Act and consequently the Government had accorded sanction to the District Collector as per Ext.R-5(d) G.O.(Rt) No.82/2018/RD dated 6.1.2018. Pursuant to Ext.R-5(d) G.O. dated 6.1.2018, the Social Impact Unit had issued Ext.R-5(e) notice under Rule 14(1) (Form No.5) under the new Rules. Pursuant to Ext.R-5(e) dated 8.2.2018, the Social Impact Assessment Study was conducted through expert agency named Kannur Association for Integrated Rural Organization and Support (KAIROS) and a report was obtained. In the said public hearing conducted by the KAIROS under Rule 14 of the new Rules, 20 land owners attended and hearing notice was published in two local Malayalam dailies and individual notice was also issued to the 2[nd] petitioner but she did not attend the meeting convened by Social Impact Assessment Study and the said body had submitted Ext.R-5(f) Social Impact Assessment Study report dated 28.2.2018. Ext.R-5(f) Social Impact Assessment Study report was appraised by the Expert Committee which approved and directed to proceed with the acquisition as per Ext.R-5(g) proceedings dated 9.5.2018 of the said **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:9:-** Expert Committee. In the meanwhile the petitioners had filed WP(C).No.40723/2017 on 10.12.2017. It was after filing of said WP(C), that consent letter as per Ext.R-5(c) dated 18.12.2017 was submitted by the 2[nd] petitioner who is having property. Further it is reiterated that the 1[st] petitioner Sri.K.Sivadasan is not having any property to be acquired and he has no locus standi to file the writ petition and that he is only a local politician, who is objecting the project due to his own motives. Thereafter Ext.P-6 judgment in WP(C).No.40723/2017 was rendered on 11.7.2018 and prior to the passing of judgment, Ext.R-5(d) G.O. dated 6.1.2018 was issued by the Government. Subsequently Ext.R-5(e) notice dated 8.2.2018 was issued under Rule 14 and Ext.R-5(f) Impact Assessment Study Report dated 28.2.2018 was submitted, pursuant to which Ext.R-5(g) approval of expert committee was granted on 9.5.2018, etc. 7. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that between the filing of WP(C).No.40723/2017 (viz, 10.12.2017) and the date of Ext.P-6 judgment (11.7.2018), all actions stated in Exhibits R-5(c) to R-5(g) had taken place and that it is pointed out by the learned State Attorney that those crucial and relevant aspects of the matters were not duly taken note by this Court while rendering the **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:10:-** judgments. 8. It is now beyond any dispute that the 1[st] petitioner is not having any land to be acquired in the impugned proceedings and therefore certainly the learned State Attorney is right in stating before this Court that he has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings. However Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that the 2[nd] petitioner has not given his consent as per Ext.R-5(c) and that a mere glance at Ext.R-5(c) would also show that the 2[nd] petitioner has not signed in the said document. Whereas the respondents would assert on the basis of pleadings in the counter affidavit and along with the requisite documents that the 2[nd] petitioner has also given consent as per Ext.R-5(c) and further that she did not want to acquire the entire property and so only a portion of a building of the property alone is acquired which will not affect the continuing residence in the remaining portion and that is why she has given a consent as per Ext.R-5(c), etc. The petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit denying the above allegations in the counter of R-5. 9. That is essentially a disputed question of fact as between **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:11:-** the 2[nd] petitioner and the respondents and that aspect of the matter will be dealt with by this Court in the later part of this judgment. The prime contention raised by Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the impugned Ext.P-12 is vitiated for the simple reason that Ext.P-12 dated 27.11.2018 is only a Government letter issued by the Principal Secretary in a manner which abridges the decision which is already rendered by the 5[th] respondent State Government as per Ext.P-7 G.O.(Rt) No.1547/2018/PWD dated 1.10.2018. It is pointed by Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the pointed decision taken by the 5[th] respondent State Government in Ext.P-7 G.O. dated 1.10.2018 is given in the final paragraph of Ext.P-7 which reads as follows: "രണ്ടു വവിഭഭാഗകഭാരരയയും നനേരവിൽ നകേട്ടതവിൽ നേവിനയും പുതവിയ ROB നേവിർനദേശതവിനന്മേൽ സ്ഥലവഭാസവികേൾ മുനനഭാട്ടു വചവിട്ടുള്ള ബദേൽ മഭാതൃകേകേളുരട അപരരഭാപ് **ത** കേൾ അവരര നനേരവിട് **ട** നബഭാധരരപ്പെടുത്തുനതവിൽ RBDCK ഒരു ജനേകേകീയ സർനവ്വേ നേടത്തുനതവിരന്റെ ആവശരകേതയവിനലക്കു വവിരൽ ചൂണ്ടുനതഭായവി നബഭാധരരപ്പെട്ടു . അതവിനേഭാൽ പരഭാതവികഭാരുൾരപ്പെട്ട സ്ഥലവഭാസവികേരളെയയും, ബന്ധരപ്പെട്ട ജനേപ്രതവിനേവിധവികേരളെയയും ഉൾരപ്പെടുതവി ഒരു സഭാധരതഭാ പഠനേയും സയുംഘടവിപ്പെവിചതവിന നശഷയും അലലൻരമന്റെട്ട് തകീർചരപ്പെടുത്തുവഭാൻ ആർ. ബവി. ഡവി.സവി.രകേ. കട്ട് നേവിർനദേശയും നേൽകുന. ഇപ്രകേഭാരയും പരഭാമർശയും 2-രല വവിധവിനേരഭായയും തകീർപ്പെഭാകവി ഉതരവട്ട് പുറരപ്പെടുവവിക്കുന. ” 10. It is pointed out by the petitioners that the substantial decision of the respondent State Government rendered and so **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:12:-** reflected in Ext.P-7 in exercise of the executive powers of the State conferred under Article 161 of the Constitution of India as regulated by the rules of business of the State Government framed under Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India and that therefore such a decision so rendered by the 5[th] respondent State Government in exercise of its executive powers and in accordance with the procedure prescribed and permitted by the Constitution as well as the rules of business framed in accordance therewith, cannot be abridged or altered through a Government letter as the one in Ext.P-12. On facts, it is pointed out that the decision taken in Ext.P-7 was that in order to convince the persons concerned about the viability of the proposals, people's survey (Janakeeya survey) is necessary and that therefore all concerned, including the objectors, members of the locality and the people's representatives concerned would be included to conduct a feasibility study in that regard, and that the alignment could be finalised only thereafter, etc. It is pointed out that the said considered decision taken by the 5[th] respondent State Government in Ext.P-7 has been totally given a go by as per the impugned Ext.P-12 Government letter issued by the Principal Secretary. In that regard it is pointed out that various High Courts and the Apex Court has held in various **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:13:-** decisions that the decision taken by the executive Government through a Government Order/Executive Order after following the rules of business framed under the enabling provisions of the Constitution, cannot be abridged or varied in any manner by the issuance of a contra decision through a Government letter and that the very same procedure for taking the executive decision after following the due process of rules of business should be taken so as to vary the earlier decision. In that regard, the counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in _**State of Kerala v. Thomas [2015 (1) KLT 863 (F.B.)]**_ paras 34 to 38. 11. After hearing both sides, prima facie there could be some force in the abovesaid contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners regarding the variation of the decision in Ext.P-7 G.O. dated 1.10.2018 through the issuance of Ext.P-12 Government letter dated 27.11.2018. However taking into account the totality of the facts of this case, this Court is of the view that it will not be right and proper for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to interfere in a matter like this which would certainly amount to **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:14:-** affecting vital public interest touching the acquisition proposed by the State for the development of a railway overbridge, which is a vital piece of infrastructure affecting not just the persons of the locality in Kannur but the entire citizenry and tax payers of the State. This Court is also constrained to observe that it could be a matter of knowledge that it may not be far off the mark, if this Court were to infer that the infrastructural developments in the matter of State Highways, National Highways, State Roads, Railway Projects, etc that our State is lagging far behind any other States even in Southern India. A highly literate State like ours, is facing serious problems of unemployment in spite of over educated youth available in abundance. This Court is no expert to prescribe any panacea, even any solutions for any such vexed issues for they are certainly in the realm of experts in the matter of socio-economic policy. It does not require too much of expertise for even a layman to hold that development of vital infrastructure like State Highways, National Highways, State Roads, Railway Projects, etc in the State would certainly pave long way for developing ancillary activities in the economy which would certainly lead not only to the growth but also the development of the economy as well as generation of employment **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:15:-** atleast in the informal sector and which in turn would lead to generation of employment in other regular levels. Therefore in matters like this, a Constitutional Court exercising its discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would have to bear in mind the larger perspective of public interest that is involved and the stakes involved and the consequences that any interdiction that this Court may make on the vital public interest as aforestated. 12. That apart it is to be borne in mind that the substantial contention of the petitioners are not merely on the technicalities as between the correctness of the decision taken in Ext.P-12 Government letter, viz a viz, Ext.P-7 Government order but as regards the correctness or otherwise of the alignment acquisition approved by the competent authorities concerned. Now it is beyond any factual controversy that the abovesaid alignment has been arrived at through series of expert apprises at various and multi levels including the social impact assessment study that the impugned alignment has been arrived at. It is thereafter that second re-look was proposed by Ext.P-7 G.O. which ultimately culminated in Ext.P-12 Government letter. Therefore instead of focusing only on the narrow bandwidth of **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:16:-** the issue regarding the correctness of Ext.P-12 Government letter viz a viz, the one in Ext.P-7 G.O. this Court would certainly have a look at the wider canvas as to the scope and ambit of this Court's powers in judicial review to examine the correctness of otherwise of the alignment proposed by the authorities and the counter alignment proposed by the petitioners. Decisions in this regard of the Apex Court and various High Courts are in legion. The Apex Court in the celebrated case in _**State of Punjab and another v. Gurdial Singh and others [1980 (2) SCC 471] and Shukhla V.S. and others v. National Highways Authority of India(Ministry of Road Transport & Highways) and others (2013 KHC 2619)**_ has held that it will not be right and proper for a Court exercising powers under Article 226 to consider the feasibility of alternate alignments in the absence of manifested malafides. The Apex Court has time again reiterated the legal position in that regard as can be seen from the decision in _**UOI v. Kushala Shetty and Others [(2011) 12 SCC 69]**_ wherein it has been held that it is not right and proper for the Court to decide upon the viability and feasibility of a particular project unless it is ex facie found to be contrary to law or due to patent malafides. The Apex Court in the **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:17:-** judgment in _**Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and others [(2005) 13 SCC 477]**_ has clearly held that even in a case where the acquisition was not in accordance with provisions of statute, the larger public interest has to prevail and the land owners would be entitled to claim only compensation and not for return of the land. In _**Kushala Shetty's case supra [(2011) 12 SCC 69]**_ the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any substantial case of malafides, the settling of alignment is not a matter which should be examined by a Court in exercise of power of judicial review by making a rowing enquiry to fish out materials to draw conclusions. It has been held in para 28 of the said judgment which reads as follows: _“ 28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of national highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of national highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither has any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act been established nor has the charge of_ **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:18:-** _malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. ”_ 13. Though the abovesaid observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 28 of _**Kushala Shetty's case supra [(2011) 12 SCC 69]**_ is in the context of the alignment finalised by the experts of the National Highways Authority, certainly the law laid down by the Apex Court in that regard would also be applicable with the equal vigor in the case of the present alignment which has been fixed by persons having expertise. The petitioners have not raised any dispute regarding the expertise and competence of the experts who have finalised the abovesaid alignment. It has to be borne in mind that any interference just for the sake of technicality may not have any substantial effect and even turn out to be detrimental to the public interest. Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney appearing for the official respondents would submit on the basis of instructions of his parties that the decision taken by the 5[th] respondent State Government as referred to in Ext.P-12 is that the competent authority the 5[th] respondent State Government has taken the considered decision as reflected in Ext.P-12 Government letter and that even if the matter is remitted, the competent authority - the 5[th] respondent State Government does not propose to take a contra decision thereon, **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:19:-** in view of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the said impugned proceedings as well as in the averments in the counter affidavit. The said submission made by the learned State Attorney on behalf of the respondent State Authorities, cannot be merely brushed aside by this Court. Already two interdictions has been made by this Court as regards the impugned proceedings as per Ext.P-6 judgment dated 11.7.2018 and Ext.P-10 judgment dated 16.11.2018. Moreover, a mere glance at Ext.P-7 G.O. would also disclose that what is proposed therein is only another people's survey in order to convince the objectors like the petitioners about the correctness of the alignment and in that regard a further feasibility study will be conducted and that the decision regarding the alignment will be so decided, etc. Taking into consideration the nature of the decision reflected in Ext.P-7 as well as the substantial nature of public interest involved in this matter, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid contention of the petitioners regarding the correctness or otherwise of impugned decision as per Ext.P-12 Government letter viz a viz, the one in Ext.P-7 G.O. need not be countenanced. 14. Having heard both sides and looking into the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court feels that even if the **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:20:-** matter is remitted, this Court will have to give full freedom to the 5[th] respondent State Government to decide the matter in the manner it deems with. If that be so, if the 5[th] respondent State Government has already conveyed the said stand before this Court, that it does not intend to make any revision of the decision reflected in Ext.P-12 as the entire process has been culminated and any further delay would lead to even escalation of costs of the project. Moreover the heart of the matter is that this Court has extreme limitation in exercising its powers of judicial review while examining contentions based on the viability or otherwise of alignments proposed by the authorities as well as fact by the objectors like the petitioners. Taking into account all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. If that be the matter, it is ordered that the Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS** **JUDGE** MMG **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:21:-** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TOPOGRAPHICAL PLAN PREPARED BY THE TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED ENGINEERS INCLUDING THOSE WHO RETIRED FROM THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. EXHIBIT P1 A A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY AN EXPERT. EXHIBIT P1 B A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY AN EXPERT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-102017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.11.2017 SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P2, BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-112017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER, KERALA. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.40723/2018 DATED 11.07.2018 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-102018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 1-10-2018 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 A A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **WP(C).No.41320 of 2018** ## **-:22:-** **EXHIBIT P9 B** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1611-2018 IN WP(C) NO. 35017 OF 2018 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.** **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31-10-2018.** - **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. PWD D2/561/2017-PWD DATED 27-11-2018.** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT PLAN PREPARED BY KITCO DATED 15.06.2013** - **EXHIBIT R5(B)** - **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPROVAL DATED 30.03.2016 ALONG WITH THE APPROVED SKETCH PLAN BY THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY** - **EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO.2** **EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.82/2018/RD DATED 06.01.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.5 UNDER RFCTLARR(KERALA) RULES 2015 DATED 08.02.2018.** **EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE STUDY REPORT DATED 28.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY UNIT.** **EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE DATED 09.05.2018.**