M.K.Thankappan vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1511 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                   &

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

         FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 15TH MAGHA, 1943

                          WP(C) NO. 741 OF 2022

PETITIONER/S:

           M.K.THANKAPPAN,
           AGED 61 YEARS
           S/O. M.R. KUTTAN, "MUTTATHIL HOUSE', KORATTY POST, THRISSUR
           DISTRICT 680 005.
           BY ADVS.
           A.K.PREETHA
           M.R.RAJESH
           ANNS THANKU PAUL
           RESHMA R.KRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1     UNION OF INDIA,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL
           BHAWAN, 256-A, RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL
           SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 110 001.
     2     THE RAILWAY BOARD,
           RAIL BHAWAN, 256- A, RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL
           SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
     3     SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
           HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 600 003,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER.
     4     STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF
           TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
     5     KERALA RAIL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED. (K-RAIL)
           5TH FLOOR, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD P.O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA -695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS
           MANAGING DIRECTOR.
     6     MANAGING DIRECTOR,
           KERALA RAIL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (K RAIL), 5TH
           FLOOR, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD P.O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 014.
     7     THE UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF
           SECRETARIAT, PUDUCHERRY 605 001.
 W.P.(C) No. 741/2022                :2:




8     THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
      OFFICE OF REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, GOVERNMENT HOUSE, MAHE,
      PIN 673 310.
      BY ADVS.

      R4 BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHAN KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
      R1 TO R3, R5 AND R6 BY SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS
      SHRI.V.MANU, SENIOR G.P.(GP-46)
      SHRI.T.B.HOOD, SPL.G.P. TO A.G.()



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

04.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
      W.P.(C) No. 741/2022                     :3:




             Dated this the 4th day of February, 2022.

                               JUDGMENT

S. MANIKUMAR,CJ.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

1. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside Exts.P5, P6 and all consequential proceedings.

2. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction interdicting the 4th and 5th respondents from proceeding with pre investment activities including survey and land acquisition under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. Declare that in view of Section 105(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the proceedings under the LARR Act, 2013 has no application to the Silverline project.

4. Declare that the 4th respondent has no authority to undertake pre investments activities on the basis of "In Principle Approval" as the pre investment cost estimate is above Rs.100 crore and that the 4 th respondent lacks jurisdiction to undertake survey and land acquisition without the approval of Cabinet/Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, hence illegal.

5. Declare that as the Project of the cost is above Rs.1000 Crore, the project can be proceeded with only after approval from the competent

/prescribed authority as envisaged in Ext. P8;

2. Even though Smt. A.K. Preetha, learned counsel for the

petitioner, has filed a memo dated 04.02.2020 seeking permission to

withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file afresh, she submitted

that no liberty need be granted.

Placing on record the said submission, this writ petition is

dismissed as withdrawn.

sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv