IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35204 of 2008(N)
1. S & R CABLE VISION, MALSYAPURI P.O.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELETRICAL SECTION
4. THADEVOOS, S/O.JOSEPH, VATHURUTHY CABLE
For Petitioner :SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 35204 OF 2008 (N)
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the
respondents to consider Ext.P2 and regularize the cables drawn
by the petitioner through 31 poles belonging to the respondent
Board.
2. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P3, they sought
permission to draw cables through the 28 posts specified in the
said communication. No response was forthcoming from the
Board, but however, the petitioner proceeded to draw the cables.
Subsequently, the Board issued Ext.P1 order dated 29/8/2008
permitting regularisation of such cables, subject to the following
conditions.
(i) regularize all unauthorized Cable TV
connections with effect from the date of
payment of 3 times the floor rate fixed by the
Board from the date of unauthorized
connection.
(ii) The cut-off date for regularizing the
unauthorized connection is fixed as 30.09.2008.
(iii) The Executive Engineers of Electrical
Division should give proper intimation and
publicity through media regarding this and to
dismantle with effect from 1.10.2008 all
unauthorized connections, which has not been
regularized as per this order.
WPC 35204/08
:2 :
3. Petitioner submits that they made Ext.P2 application
for the benefit of Ext.P1 and to regularize the cables drawn
through the 31 poles mentioned therein. Response was not
forthcoming and on the other hand, Ext.P5 was issued requiring
them to remove the cables. It is in these circumstances, the writ
petition is filed.
4. A reading of the conditions imposed in Ext.P1 itself
show that regularisation is permitted only from the date of
payment of 3 times the floor rate fixed by the Board. In Ext.P2,
apart from making a mere application, petitioner did not remit the
amount as specified in Ext.P1. If that be so, the application itself
is defective and the refusal of the Board in ordering regularisation
of the cables drawn by the petitioner cannot be faulted. If so,
Ext.P5 communication referred to above requiring the petitioner
to remove the cables also cannot be faulted.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp