T.Vijayalakshmi vs The District Collector on 6 December, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28639 of 2007(H)


1. T.VIJAYALAKSHMI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. THE SECRETARY,

4. SRI.BALAN, ELATTIL HOUSE,

5. SRI. RAMANKUTTY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSE ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :06/12/2007

 O R D E R
                       C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  ....................................................................
                            W.P.(C) No.28639 of 2007
                  ....................................................................
                  Dated this the 6th day of December, 2007.

                                         JUDGMENT

W.P. is filed for direction to the KSEB to give electric connection to

petitioner’s residential house. The petitioner applied for electric connection

five years back and even now connection is not given only on account of

objection raised by neighbouring land owners, respondents 4 and 5.

Standing Counsel submitted that even though KSEB proposed weatherproof

cable over the properties of respondents 4 and 5, the District Collector

considered their objections and suggested drawal of line in another route so

that others in the area also will get connection. Standing Counsel submitted

that others in the area have not applied for connection and therefore, KSEB

has not drawn the overhead line. Even though Ext.P3 order of the

Collector is under challenge, I do not think this court should interfere with

the said order because the Collector is free to take into account requirement

of others in the area. However, the Collector committed an error in not

ordering connection to the petitioner through weatherproof cable over the

properties of respondents 4 and 5 until alternate line is drawn and

connection given to the petitioner from such line. Since weatherproof line

2

is benign insulated cable, respondents 4 and 5 cannot have any serious

objection in retaining the line for a short period i.e. until drawal of line in

terms of Collector’s order. Even though notices were served on respondents

4 and 5, they have not appeared or raised any objection. I do not think the

matter should be held up any longer and therefore, I dispose of the W.P.

with direction to the second respondent to give connection to the petitioner

through weatherproof cable in terms of the original proposal i.e.with

weatherproof cable over the properties of respondents 4 and 5 without any

delay. As far as possible line should be drawn over the extreme boundaries

of properties of respondents 4 and 5 providing sufficient clearance from the

ground and causing least inconvenience to them. There will be a further

direction to the second respondent to draw the line in terms of the

Collector’s order and give regular connection to the petitioner within six

months from now. Probably others in the area have not applied for

connection so far because there is no line available in the area and they will

not be able to meet the additional cost for drawing the line. Therefore, it is

for the KSEB to take into account the requirements of people in the area and

draw the line in advance to enable them to apply and get connection. The

3

petitioner will produce copy of this judgment before the second respondent

for compliance.

W.P. is disposed of as above.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms