IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17262 of 2010(G)
1. HARIKUMAR.M.A., MRAMUTTATHU HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALAL STATE ELECTIRICITY
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD
4. TITUS VANIYAPURACKAL, VANIA SETVISION,
5. ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL
For Respondent :SRI.R.RAMADAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :28/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 17262 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to
be given to the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct `fresh auction’ for the use of
LT poles in the area, which is given to the 4th respondent and declare that
the 4th respondent is disqualified to use electric poles or participate in the
auction since he has transferred his license.
2. On issuing urgent notice on admission, the 4th respondent has
entered appearance and asserted that, the idea and understanding of the
petitioner as narrated in the Writ Petition are quite wrong and
misconceived and that no such transfer has been made by the 4th
respondent. The factual position is clarified from the part of the Electricity
Board, who has filed a statement before this Court. This is supported by
the 5th respondent, bringing into notice of this Court that the 4th respondent
is no more the `franchisee’ of the 5th respondent; the franchise agreement
having been expired in 2005. It is also stated that, the 4th respondent has
entered into an agreement with the Electricity Board for using the electric
poles and that the rights and liberties of the 4th respondent are flowing out
from the agreement executed directly between the 4th respondent and the
Electricity Board.
2
WP(C) No. 17262/2010
3. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that, the prayers
raised by the petitioner are quite wrong and unfounded. With regard to the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is violation of
the agreement, it is for the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy before
the competent Civil Court. As such, no interference is warranted and the
Writ Petition is dismissed. This Court does not express anything as to the
rights and liberties of the petitioner, the Board or the other parties
concerned.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc