IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7200 of 2010(Y)
1. PAULSON,S/O. OUSEPH
... Petitioner
2. HAMEED, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI
3. KUNJU MUHAMMED, S/O.UNNAYANKUTTY HAJI
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
4. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :05/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 7200 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 5th March , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos. 1
and 2 are trying to draw 220 K.V. electric line by installing a
tower in the property of the second and third petitioners and
that drawing of the lines across the property is without getting
consent of the petitioners and even without any regard to the
pendency of Exts. P2 and P3 representations preferred before
the first and second respondents respectively.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
objection raised by the petitioners is liable to be caused to be
considered by the third respondent, who is the statutory
authority in this regard and that the drawing of the lines as well
as installation of the tower can be effected only subject to the
orders to be passed by the third respondent.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
W.P.(C) No. 7200 of 2010
2
1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent
as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the
third respondent.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th
respondent submits that the petitioner had approached this Court
earlier for similar reliefs confined against the 4th respondent by
filing W.P.(C)No.6582 of 2010. The position was brought to the
notice of this Court, on instruction, that the line was being drawn
not at the instance of the 4th respondent but only at the instance
of Board itself, upon which, the said Writ Petition was dismissed
as withdrawn. Despite the above circumstance, the petitioners
have approached this Court again for similar reliefs, also
against the 4th respondent, which is devoid of any merit or
bonafides, submits the learned Standing Counsel.
5. After considering the facts and circumstances, the
respondents 1 and 2 are directed to cause Exts.P2 and P3
representation to be referred to the third respondent/ADM within
one week. On such reference, the matter shall be considered and
finalised by the third respondent/ADM in accordance with law,
W.P.(C) No. 7200 of 2010
3
after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the
date of receipt of such reference. It is made clear that
installation of the tower as well as drawing of electric line by the
respondents 1 and 2 shall be subject to the orders to be passed
by the third respondent/ADM in the above proceedings.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk
