IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 25395 of 2010(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- V.K.HASSAN KOYA @ BAVU, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, VETTIKUTHI HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT. SEEMA PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, THIRURANGADI, P.O.CHEMMAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 306. 3. K.K.YOUSAF KOYA THANGAL, S/O.MUTHUKOYA THANGAL, VALIYAPADAM HOUSE, CHETTIPADY P.O., PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 319. 4. ASIYA @ KUNHUBEEVI, W/O.MUTHUKOYA THANGAL, 85 YEARS, VALIYAPADAM HOUSE, P.O.CHETTIPPADI, NEDUVA AMSOM, TIRURANGDI TALUK, PIN 676 319. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 505. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B F R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI. A. KRISHNAN R5 BY GOVT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 25395 of 2010(Y) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY TH DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 5-1-2007. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM DATED 17-9-2008. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED ROUTE SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. (*EXT.P3 REPLACED AS) *EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PARAPPANANGADI BEFORE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. EXT.P3 REPLACED AS PER DATED 19/8/2010 IN I.A. NO. 11816/2010 . EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28681/2008 DATED 2-6-2009. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI AS O.S. 131/2009. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI IN I.A. 1228/2009 IN O.S. 131/2009 DTD. 5-8-2009. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 36/2009 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, TIRUR. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE ARTICLE IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 16-2-2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6.7.2009. EXT.R3(b) : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.7.2009. EXT.R3(c) : COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 1.7.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25395 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of an Oil Mill which is presently operated manually. With a view to convert the manually operated oil mill into a mill run with electrical power, the petitioner applied for a service connection to the first respondent. The grant of the petitioner's application required conversion of an existing single phase line into a three phase line. Though the application for electricity connection was made in the year 1995, electricity connection was not given in view of the objections raised by respondents 3 and 4. That issue was ultimately resolved by the Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram by Ext.P2 order dated 17.9.2008 whereby the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) was permitted to draw the line through the route proposed by the Board after maintaining the safety measures referred to in the statement filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer. The third respondent challenged Ext.P2 order by filing W.P.(C) No.28681 of 2008 in this Court. In that writ petition, he contended that a newly formed road has come into WPC No.25395/2010 2 existence and the line can be drawn through the said road. A copy of Ext.P2 order was produced and marked as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.28681 of 2008.The learned single Judge considered the said contention as well and held in Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 2.6.2009 that there is no merit in the challenge to Ext.P2. After repelling the challenge to Ext.P2, the learned single Judge held that even going by the proposal set out by the third respondent, the petitioner will have to obtain the consent of other persons and that if the third respondent is desirous of getting the line shifted from the existing alignment, it will be open to him to move the appropriate authority. This Court also observed that the appropriate authority shall do the needful in the matter. It is stated that the third respondent thereafter filed O.S. No.131 of 2009 in the Court of Munsiff of Parappanangadi, that in the suit an interim order of injunction was passed on I.A. 1228 of 2009 restraining the Board and its officers from drawing the electricity line and that the interim order of injunction was vacated by Ext.P8 judgment delivered in C.M.A. No.36 of 2009 filed by the petitioner. The grievance voiced voiced by the petitioner is that though Ext.P2 order has been upheld by this Court by Ext.P4 judgment and Ext.P4 judgment has attained finality, the official respondents have not till WPC No.25395/2010 3 date given a three phase electricity connection to his oil mill. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 3 to grant a three phase electricity connection to his oil mill within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also prayed for an order directing the fifth respondent to provide adequate police protection to respondents 1 and 2 to draw the electricity line. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board has filed a statement dated 6.9.2010. After referring to Ext.P4 judgment, it is stated that even after Ext.P4 judgment was delivered, the third respondent and his relatives prevented the officials of the Board from drawing the electricity line, that though the aid of the police was sought and given, they were prevented from drawing the line by the third respondent and his relatives. It is also stated that the third respondent had instituted a suit, O.S. No.131 of 2009 in the Court of the Munsiff of Parappanangadi and that the court below restrained the Board from drawing the electricity line through the alignment approved by the Additonal District Magistrate. It is also stated that the third respondent has filed a petition before the Additional District Magistrate and that the said petition is pending. The learned standing counsel also stated that the order of injunction was set WPC No.25395/2010 4 aside by the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.A. No.36 of 2009. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the applications filed by him and the fourth respondent namely Ext.R3(a) and R3(b) are pending before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Parappanangadi and the Additional District Magistrate and that in the said applications, they have applied for shifting of the present alignment. It is stated that in view of the observations made by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment they are entitled to have their request considered. 4. I heard Sri. Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. C.K.Karunakaran, learned standing counsel appearing for the Board and Sri.A.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. By virtue of Ext.P4 judgment passed by this Court, Ext.P2 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram permitting the Board and its officers to draw the electricity line through the properties belonging to respondents 3 and 4 has attained finality. Though respondents 3 and 4 raised a contention in W.P.(C) No.28681 of 2008 that the line can be drawn WPC No.25395/2010 5 through another route, the said contention was not entertained by this Court. This Court after noticing the said contention held that if the third respondent is desirous of getting the line shifted, it will be open to him to move the appropriate authority. The said observation only means that after the line is drawn, the third respondent can request the appropriate authority to shift the line. The observations in Ext.P4 do not have the effect of conveying the meaning that electricity supply need not be given to the petitioner till the request if any made by respondents 3 and 4 to shift the route is considered or that the electricity line need not be drawn through the route approved by the Additional District Magistrate in Ext.P2. The petitioner applied for an electricity connection in the year 1995. The Additional District Magistrate granted permission on 17.9.2008. More than one year has passed after the Additional District Magistrate permitted the Board to draw the line through the lands belonging to respondents 3 and 4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that respondents 1 and 2 should draw the electricity line along the route approved by the Additional District Magistrate in Ext.P2 order forthwith. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the WPC No.25395/2010 6 competent authority in the Kerala State Electricity Board to draw electricity line through the route approved by the Additional District Magistrate in Ext.P2 order and to give electricity connection to the petitioner's oil mill within 10 days from today. The fifth respondent Superintendent of Police shall give adequate police protection to the officers of the Board and the men engaged by the Board to draw the electricity line through the route approved by the Additional District Magistrate in Ext.P2, if any obstruction is caused by respondents 3 and 4, their men and agents. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.25395/2010 7 WPC No.25395/2010 8