IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14097 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MOLLY C.J., W/O. THANKACHAN, MANNOORAM PARAMBIL, MADATHIL, IRITTY P.O., KANNUR 2. THOMAS, S/O. JOHN, THEKKEMURIYIL, MADATHIL, IRITTY P.O., KANNUR. 3. BIJU M.A., S/O. ABRAHAM, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE 4. JOSEPH TAHARKUDIYIL, S/O. VARKEY, MADATHIL, IRITTY P.O., KANNUR. 5. VARKEY THACHERUKURIYIL, MADATHIL, IRITTY P.O., KANNUR. 6. JANAKI, W/O. GOPALAN,MANIKOTH, IRITTY P.O.,KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SUB STATION, SUB DIVISION, THALASSERY, PONNYAM WEST P.O., KANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SUB STATION, SUB DIVISION, KANNUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, T.C.SECTION, IRITTY.P.O., CHAVASSERY, KANNUR. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14097 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim to be small agriculturists. According to them, for drawing an overhead line of 66 KVA they gave consent. It is stated that subsequently the Board has modified its proposal and presently its proposal is to draw 110 KVA line. Since the proposal was thus revised, the petitioners' apprehension is that extensive damages will be caused to their properties and that it will be much more than what they originally anticipated and agreed. Therefore, they objected drawing of 110 KVA line. 2. Ultimately they received Ext.P3 from the 2nd respondent calling upon them to receive the compensation due. Realising that despite their objections, 110 KVA line will be drawn across their properties, this writ petition has been filed contending that in view of the objections raised by them, unless necessary application is moved before the ADM, the respondents cannot draw the line unilaterally. The petitioners are also relying on Ext.P4 judgment, where this Court has directed that the issue of this nature should be resolved by the ADM. WP(C) No.14097/2009 -2- 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondents informed that reference pursuant to Ext.P4 has already been made to the ADM, and that the parties to Ext.P4 have already been heard. It is submitted that the issue and the claims raised in this writ petition are identical, the ADM can consider the grievances of the petitioners also. 4. Even according to the learned standing counsel appearing for the Board, the ADM has not so far passed final orders on the reference made following Ext.P4 judgment. Since the issue involved and the grievance raised in this writ petition are identical to what has already been raised before the ADM in pursuance to Ext.P4, it is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the ADM, Kannur shall also hear the grievances of the petitioners and pass orders, covering their grievances also. 5. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the ADM for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg