IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 17020 of 2007(A)
1. SURESH BABU, PERUNILATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
3. K.K.PRAKASAN, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE,
4. GOURI, VAKKE PAZAMBATH,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :15/01/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 17020 of 2007-A
------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner applied for supply of electrical energy. It was
found that the line has been drawn crossing the property of respondents 3
and 4. The petitioner had the sale deed and a purported consent letter by
the 4th respondent. On that basis, Kerala State Electricity Board drew the
line. Thereafter, the third respondent filed a complaint before the K.S.E.B
authorities alleging fraud in the matter of obtaining the alleged consent
letter. The Board withdrew the connection. The petitioner filed this writ
petition on 4-6-2007. This Court directed that if the line is still in existence,
re-connection shall be made. The petitioner is thus now enjoying electric
supply.
(2). The afore-said facts will show that the basic dispute
between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 is whether the 4th
respondent had consented to the drawal of the line and still further whether
respondents 3 and 4 have any sustainable objection and whether the
Additional District Magistrate can overrule the objections in terms of Indian
Telegraph Act and Electricity Act.
(3). Under the aforesaid circumstances, preserving status quo
as on today, it is directed that the respondents 1 and 2 shall place
W.P.C.No.17020/2007 -2-
appropriate applications to the concerned District Magistrate for consideration
of the case since respondents 3 and 4 are objecting to the drawal of the
line. The District Magistrate shall decide the case in accordance with the
Indian Telegraph Act and Electricity Act. Objections of respondents 3 and 4
to the drawal of line as per alignment shall be noted. If the District
Magistrate concludes that the objections are sustained, the Board shall
provide alternative alignment and dismantle the present alignment.
However, if the objection is overruled, the line shall stand as such. The
decision by the District Magistrate shall be taken within an outer limit of three
months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Thereafter continuance of
energisation and alignment would depend upon such decision.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
MS