A VIDYA SAGAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT.P5 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram on 6.1.2011 rejecting two petitions filed by the petitioners is under challenge in this writ petition. A reading of EXT.P5 discloses that what was considered by the Additional District Magistrate was EXTs.P3 and P4 petitions filed by the petitioners before the Chairman of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The grievance voiced by the petitioners in the said petitions is as regards the drawal of a 110 KV line through their property. When this writ petition came up for admission on 27.1.2011 the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board was directed to get instructions.

(2.) TODAY when this writ petition came up for further hearing Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 and the mother of the second petitioner had earlier filed W.P(C) No.21705 of 2005 in this Court challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate on 3.2.2005 approving the revised alignment for the 110 KV line suggested by the Kerala State Electricity Board and that the second petitioner's mother had filed W.P(C)No.33538 of 2005 challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Malappuram on 29.6.2005 pursuant to a notice issued on her instructions, that the said writ petitions were dismissed and that it is without disclosing the said fact that this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order. Copies of the judgments in the aforesaid writ petitions were also made available to me for perusal. By judgment delivered on 2.9.2005 a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed W.P(C)No.21705 of 2005 filed by petitioners 1 and 2 herein and 8 others challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram approving the revised alignment and allowing the Kerala State Electricity Board to draw the 110 KV electricity line. The said judgment has become final. The judgment delivered on 12.12.2005 in W.P(C)No.33538 of 2005 discloses that the second petitioner's mother had filed the said writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Malappuram, whereby he maintained the earlier order passed by him. The said judgment has also become final. The petitioners have not in Exts.P3 and P4 petitions, which led to Ext.P5 order, referred to the fact that they had earlier filed writ petitions in this Court and that those writ petitions were dismissed. The petitioners have suppressed material facts not only in this Court but also in the petitions filed before the Human Rights Commission. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition.