IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16609 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FASEELA VATTAMKANDATHIL, W/O. MUHAMMED RAFI, MELEPURATH VEEDU, CHEMMALA, CHEMMALASSERY P.O., PULAMANTHOL, KULATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.A.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE ADM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., PULAMANTHOL, MALAPPURAM. 3. P.MUHAMMED RAFI, CHEMMALASSERY, PULAMANTHOL, KULATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MELEPURATH SAIDALI HAJI RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-) ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.16609 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner made an application for electricity connection to Building No.PP XI/121A of Pulamanthol Grama Panchayat. There was objection from none other than her husband and the matter ultimately reached the first respondent for proceeding under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act and Ext.P7 is the final order passed. While rejecting the petition, further proceedings is ordered to be initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that resident certificate No.A8/03/816 of the Panchayat produced by the petitioner was a fabricated document. Petitioner submits that what she has produced is the one issued by the Clerk of the Panchayat Office and she has not fabricated any document or produced the same. In my view this is the matter for the Superintendent of Police to whom WP(c).No.16609/09 2 the matter is referred to inquire and ascertain the correctness. If at all the case of the petitioner is that what she has produced is the certificate issued by the clerk of the Panchayat Office, she can raise that point before the Superintendent of Police. If so raised, I do not think that the Superintendent of Police will ignore the same. Irrespective of the same, the fact remains that the building in question belongs to her husband with whom her relationship is strained. It was because of that reason that the husband had objected to the supply to the premises in question. Having regard to the facts as revealed in Ext.P7 I do not think that there is any reason to interfere with Ext.P7. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise her contentions regarding the genuineness of the certificate produced by her before the Superintendent of Police, this writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.16609/09 3