Sasikala Bhai vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 4 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13732 of 2007(I)


1. SASIKALA BHAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SAVITHRI, PUTHENPARAMBIL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SMT.T.J.SEEMA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :04/06/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No. 13732 OF 2007
              .........................................................................
                         Dated this the 4th June, 2010

                                   J U D G M E N T

The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent

submits that the second respondent is no more . Considering the

limited nature of the contentions now pressed by the petitioner

and the limited extent of relief proposed to be given and further

since that the second respondent in the Writ Petition was the

original beneficiary of drawing the electric line, which benefit is

actually being enjoyed by the Legal heirs, this Court does not find

it necessary to issue any direction to implead the legal heirs of

the second respondent for the time being, nor do they require

to be heard in this regard.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the

present Writ Petition, when the first respondent took steps to

draw electric line through the property of the petitioner, cutting

across the property into two, virtually causing much hardship

and loss to the petitioner, who was actually intending to

construct a residential building in the property. It was also

specifically contended by the petitioner, as a measure of

W.P.(C) No. 13732 OF 2007

2

bonafides in Ground ‘H’ as follows:

“in the event, if it is found that the alternate

proposal of the petitioner was not feasible and

less onerous , the petitioner is prepared to

give consent for drawing the line along the

boundary of the property of the petitioner”

3. It was after considering the above stand, that the

matter was admitted by this Court on 24.04.2007, passing an

interim order as follows:

“Elecltric line to be drawn shall be only along

the boundary of the petitioner’s property and

shall not cut across the petitioner’s property”

4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit

pointing out the facts and figures and also producing a rough

sketch showing the lie and location of the property as Ext. R1(a).

The learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that taking

note of the grievances of the petitioner, and also the interim

order passed by this Court, the line could be drawn from the

W.P.(C) No. 13732 OF 2007

3

point (D) to (E) to the destination (C) as given in Ext.R1(a), so

as to provide necessary connection to the beneficiary. It is

further pointed out that because of the topography of the land ,

the line cannot be drawn, exactly passing through the boundary

of the property, but of course, utmost care will be taken to see

that it is drawn in such a manner with close proximity to the

boundary to the possible maximum extent. The learned Counsel

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very much

agreeable to such a course; more so when the construciton of the

building of the petitioner has already been completed.

In the above circumstance, the submissions made from

either side are recorded and the Writ Petition is closed, making

the interim order dated 24.04.2001 absolute, subject to the

minor variation, as mentioned above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk