MINOY JAMES v. UNION OF INDIA

W.P.(C).NO.30141 OF 2006-S- 2 - 5. COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN. 6. RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., (RVNL), REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-04. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.B.HOOD. R1 & R6 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 15/11/2006, THE COURT ON 20/11/2006 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- V.K.Bali,C.J. & P.R.Raman,J.-------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.30141 of 2006-S-------------------------------------Dated, this the 20th day of November, 2006JUDGMENTV.K.Bali,C.J. This writ by way of public interest litigation has beenfiled seeking directions to respondents to consider Alignment-1for study alike other alignments, including Alignment-2, with the6th respondent and take a final decision thereof, based ondetailed comparative study of all these alignments in depth. Thepetitioners also seek writ in the nature of mandamus directingrespondents to forbear themselves from proceeding with theirintention to favour Alignment-2 and the implementation thereofpending consideration of the feasibility and expert study ofAlignment-1. The facts on which directions as asked for and asmentioned above are sought to rest would reveal that the railconnectivity for the International Container TransshipmentTerminal at Vallarpadam is vested with Cochin Port Trust, the 5threspondent herein. The preliminary Engineering and TrafficSurvey has finalised an alignment which starts from Edappally W.P.(C).No.30141 of 2006- 2 -Railway Station, running through Vaduthala and Panchalam areaproceeding towards old Ernakulam Railway Goods (ERG) and turntowards Vallarpadam through GIDA land. A site visit by expertsrecommended for a Techno Economic Study of four alternativealignments to finalise the most feasible and acceptablealignment. This task was entrusted with the 6th respondent in themonth of May, 2005. In the process, four alignments were tabledand evidently Alignment-1 was found most feasible in terms ofcost as well as number of houses that were affected. It is thecase of the petitioners that without any study results or surveyreports, the higher ups of political hierarchy, supported by officialbureaucrats, decided to avoid Alignment-1 arbitrarily. Thedecision to avoid Alignment-1 even for study and optingAlignment-2, which is more expensive and inconvenient whencompared with Alignment-1 causing huge loss to the publicexchequer at large and further causing most inconvenience to theresidents in that area was taken arbitrarily. The StateGovernment had assured the petitioners to consider authenticallythe relevancy of Alignment-1 in comparison with Alignment-2 W.P.(C).No.30141 of 2006- 3 -during the proceedings before finalisation of the alignment. Eventhough respondents are estopped from deviating against theassurance rendered to the citizen strata, hasty steps are seenadopted to uphold Alignment-2 illegally and arbitrarily.2. The petitioners have averred that the task offinalisation of alignment was entrusted with the 6th respondent inthe month of May, 2005. The total cost of the four identifiedalignments was worked out. The cost included the landacquisition cost as well. The cost of Alignment-1 was Rs.194.635crores and the number of houses affected are 78 and the cost ofAlignment-2 was Rs.245.721 crores and the number of housesaffected are 78. The petitioners gathered details with regard tocost involved in all the alignments and the houses to be affectedand other details by seeking information under the Right toInformation Act, 2005. No other data has been produced onrecord, nor any decision taken by any authority favouringAlignment-1 has been placed on records, even though it isaverred that despite Techno Economic Study Report of 6threspondent finding Alignment-1 as the most economical and W.P.(C).No.30141 of 2006- 4 -feasible, the respondents have decided unilaterally not to proposeAlignment-1 for the project. However, the petitioners also learntonce again from information supplied under the Right toInformation Act, 2005 that there was a meeting held on 15thOctober, 2005 regarding the alignment of rail connectivity toVallarpadam under the auspices of Chief Minister of State and itwas first decided to carry out further study of all the fouralignments to finalise the most feasible and acceptablealignment. Subsequently, discussions were held and opinions ofthose who presided over that meeting were dealt with. In thefinality of such discussions, a mala fide and arbitrary decision wastaken by the leaders of various political factions ruling outAlignment-1 even for a study in view of self projected andadversely claims as stated above. From the minutes of themeeting, it is the case of the petitioners, it can be understoodthat respondents came up for the meeting with a pre-conceivednotion to avoid Alignment-1. None of the grounds put forward byrespondents would satisfy the limits of understanding of acommon man. The photo copy of the minutes of the meeting held W.P.(C).No.30141 of 2006- 5 -on 15.10.2005 has been placed on record as Exhibit P2.3. We have gone through Exhibit P2, minutes ofmeeting dated 15.10.2005. The meeting under the auspices ofChief Minister of the State was attended by Minister of Fisheriesand Sports, Minister of Industries and Information Technology,Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly,Worshipful Mayor, Chairman of Greater Cochin DevelopmentAuthority and other officials and dignitaries representing variousorganisations and a detailed discussion was made as mentionedin Exhibit P2. Discussion was made with regard to Alignment-1 asthought proper by Cochin Port Trust, but while discussing thesame it has been mentioned that the same was not desirable tothe People's representatives and District Administration as thesaid alignment would affect the Bird Sanctuary, public utilitieslike hospital, school, etc. The matter was discussed at higherlevels and after a site visit, it was decided to carry out a TechnoEconomic Study of four alternative alignments for finalising themost feasible and acceptable alignment and the task wasentrusted with M/s.Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. It has submitted the W.P.(C).No.30141 of 2006- 6 -report and the salient features of the proposal were alsopresented. Alignment-2 was found least disturbance to the public,although the cost was slightly higher than alternativeAlignment-1, which was not considered feasible as it would causeadverse impact on the bird sanctuary and public institutions likehospital, school, etc.4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitionersand examined the records of the case. We find no materialwhatsoever placed on the record that may show Alignment-1better than Alignment-2. The mere fact that initially Alignment-1was favoured is not conclusive of the fact that the same mustnecessarily be better than Alignment-2. But for showing morecost for Alignment-2, nothing, as mentioned above, has beenplaced on record that may show Alignment-1 to be more feasiblethan Alignment-2. The decision to prefer Alignment-2 was arrivedat after the matter was entrusted to an expert body and ultimatedecision has been taken by a high powered committee, consistingof all concerned including experts. Matters, such as the one inhand, is best suited to be decided by expert bodies and the High W.P.(C).No.30141 of 2006- 7 -Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia would not normally interfere. The mere fact thatAlignment-2 would cost more money is not enough to set atnaught the decision taken by high powered committee. Thisaspect was alive to the mind of the high powered committee, butwas offset with other considerations, as mentioned above, whichtoo are relevant. Surely, least disturbance to the public andsaving a Bird Sanctuary, public utilities like hospital, schools, etc.are not insignificant matters and could well be a reason goodenough to set off the cost involved in the matter.Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the samein limine. Sd/- V.K.Bali Chief Justice Sd/- P.R.Raman Judgevku/-- true copy -