IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11389 of 2008(E)
1. M.M.SULAIMAN RAWTHAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
4. FATHIMA BEEVI,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.VINOD
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :13/12/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 11389 of 2008-E
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the
proceedings issued by the third respondent under Section 16 of the
Telegraph Act, produced as Ext.P5 herein. The proceedings were issued by
to provide electricity connection to the fourth respondent herein.
2. The petitioner raised objections in the matter and the enquiry was
conducted by the third respondent. Ultimately, it was found that connection
can be given by using only 20 meters of service wire.
3. The petitioner challenged the order by raising various grounds in
the writ petition. It appears that the parties are close relatives, but the
relationship was far from cordial. Mainly it is pointed out that it is not
required to draw the line through the property of the petitioner and it may
destroy the crops standing in the property.
4. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim
order on 3.4.2008 as follows:
“Notice.
If line is to be drawn to the fourth respondent’s property that shall
wpc 11389/2008 2
only be along the boundaries of the petitioner’s property and not
across.”
5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing
Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that the line has been drawn in
terms of the interim order passed by this Court and the matter can be closed
accordingly.
6. Since line has already been drawn as directed in the interim order
along the boundaries of the petitioner’s property and not across, Ext.P5 will
stand modified to that extent. In that view of the matter, no further orders
are called for in the matter and the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/