IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36425 of 2009(W)
1. M.S.ARVIND, AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
5. WATER FRONT ENCLAVE RESIDENTS ASSN.,
6. C.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNA MENON,
7. P.K.THANKAM, D/O.KUNHIKRISHNA MENON,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :18/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No.36425 of 2009 -W
------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the first
respondent is right in keeping the dispute with regard to the
shifting of the transformer in abeyance, while the authorities under
the Kerala State Electricity Board are proceeding with the steps for
laying the cables so as to connect the same to the transformer
where it exists as on date.
2. The sequence of events as projected by the petitioner
shows that the transformer was installed on the southern side of the
properties, which was close to the petitioner’s house by about 1.5
meters. Subsequently, the petitioner took up the matter before the
Board for shifting the transformer to another convenient place as
suggested.
3. After considering the facts and figures, the petitioner
was directed to pay a sum of Rs.53,000/- for shifting the
transformer to the alternate site. It is stated that the petitioner has
remitted the amount. But subsequently, the residents association of
W.P(C) No.36425 of 2009 -W 2
the locality approached this Court challenging the order passed by
the first respondent for shifting the transformer; whereupon the
same was set aside and the matter was directed to be considered
afresh by the Additional District Magistrate, after hearing all the
parties concerned within six weeks as specified therein. It is the
case of the petitioner that, despite the specific direction given by
this Court, the matter is still kept in cold storage by the Additional
District Magistrate and in the meanwhile, the KSEB has started laying
the underground cables. It is contended that, once the cables are
connected with the transformer, the petitioner would not be in a
position to enjoy the fruits of the order likely to be passed by the
first respondent in favour of the petitioner.
4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board
submits with specific reference to the statement filed on behalf of
the Board, that the work has to be completed in a time bound
manner, as it comes within the project of the Kochi City Automation
Scheme, whereby nearly 200 Kms 11 KV Over Head lines in the city
will be altered to under ground cables for maintaining uninterrupted
power supply in Kochi city. The execution of the said work was
started on 5.10.2009 and targeted to be completed before
W.P(C) No.36425 of 2009 -W 3
31.3.2010. It is also stated in para 3 of the said statement that,
even if the under ground cable is connected to the transformer, the
transformer will be shifted, if the Additional District Magistrate
directs such shifting. More so, when the Board is bound to comply
with the direction of the Additional District Magistrate; who is the
statutory authority in this regard.
5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first
respondent submits on instructions, that the matter could not be
finalised by the Additional District Magistrate due to many a reason
including for want of some clarification to be furnished from the
Electrical Inspectorate with reference to technical aspects, which is
stated as being procured within no time. The learned Government
Pleader however submits that the matter will be considered and
finalised at any cost within one month.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the
assertion made by the respondent Board in para 3 of the statement
as to the feasibility aspect in removing the cables subject to the
orders to be passed by the Additional District Magistrate, the
apprehension expressed by the petitioner in this Writ Petition
appears to be acted upon and this Court does not find it fit and
W.P(C) No.36425 of 2009 -W 4
proper to keep the Writ Petition pending any further.
7. In the above facts and circumstances, the contents of the
statement filed on behalf of the Board and the submission made by
the learned Government Pleader on behalf of Additional District
Magistrate are recorded. The first respondent/Additional District
Magistrate is directed to finalise the proceedings forthwith, also
considering the feasibility of the alternate site now suggested by the
petitioner on the southern side of the Water Front Road Junction,
where the basement for Ring Maintenance Unit has already been
constructed.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab