IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20112 of 2008(T)
1. BABY.K.J, AGED 58, S/O.K.J. JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
4. JOB J. VILLY,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL)
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :18/08/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 20112 OF 2008 T
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Electric connection was given to the fourth respondent’s
house through the property of the petitioner about fortytwo
years back, on consent. According to petitioner, now the line
can be shifted through an alternate route through the Panchayat
Road and the private road leading to the house of the fourth
respondent. Petitioner relies on Ext.P2 sketch. The fourth
respondent by Ext.P4 objected to the alternate proposal stating
that it is through his property. This resulted in Ext.P3 by the
first respondent stating that the request of the petitioner cannot
be considered for the reason of the objection of the consumer.
Petitioner relies on Ext.P6 which is the consent for property
crossing. In the same, he relies on the agreement expressed by
the fourth respondent that in case the electric lines are required
to be deviated at a later stage, all the expenses found necessary
WPC. 20112/08 T 2
for the alternate route will be paid by him. If by circumstances
beyond control, no alternate route is feasible for maintaining
supply in his premises, he agreed to determine this agreement
and cease to be a consumer of the Kerala Stage Electricity
Board.
2. I heard Shri George Varghese, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Shri P.P. Thajudeen, learned
standing counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board
and Shri Jomy George, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the fourth respondent besides the learned Government Pleader.
3. Shri Jomy George who got instructions from the fourth
respondent submits that his party is not agreeable to the alternate
proposal. The proposed route of the petitioner involves drawing
of the line across the property of the fourth respondent also.
Such a proposal would not attract the jurisdiction of the
Authority under Section 17 of the Act. In such circumstances
and having regard to the stand of the fourth respondent, it is
clear that the stand of the first respondent in issuing Ext.P3
WPC. 20112/08 T 3
cannot be characterised as illegal. The fact that the fourth
respondent gave Ext.P6 consent or the phraseology used in the
same, cannot clothe the petitioner with a right to demand
shifting of the line in law, as contended by him. Law provides
for a remedy under Section 17 which can be invoked in
circumstances which are indicated therein. If the petitioner
seeks to remove the line or the post to another part of his
property, certainly that would be one of the matters which would
attract the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 17 of the
Act. Without prejudice to any such right of the petitioner to
invoke Section 17, if he is so advised, the present Writ Petition
is dismissed.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
//True Copy//
PS to Judge