IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17262 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- HARIKUMAR. M.A., MRAMUTTATHU HOUSE, KALLISSERY.P.O., THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALAL STATE ELECTIRICITY BOARD, REP. BY SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E. BOARD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E. BOARD SECTION OFFICE, KALLISSERY, CHIENGANNUR. 4. TITUS VANIYAPURACKAL, VANIA SETVISION, KAZHUKKOOR KEEZH MURI, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. 5. ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED SNDP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, M.C. ROAD, CHENGANNUR. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS. R5 BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 17262 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be given to the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct ‘fresh auction’ for the use of LT poles in the area, which is given to the 4th respondent and declare that the 4th respondent is disqualified to use electric poles or participate in the auction since he has transferred his license. 2. On issuing urgent notice on admission, the 4th respondent has entered appearance and asserted that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner as narrated in the Writ Petition are quite wrong and misconceived and that no such transfer has been made by the 4th respondent. The factual position is clarified from the part of the Electricity Board, who has filed a statement before this Court. This is supported by the 5th respondent, bringing into notice of this Court that the 4th respondent is no more the ‘franchisee’ of the 5th respondent; the franchise agreement having been expired in 2005. It is also stated that, the 4th respondent has entered into an agreement with the Electricity Board for using the electric poles and that the rights and liberties of the 4th respondent are flowing out from the agreement executed directly between the 4th respondent and the Electricity Board. 2 WP(C) No. 17262/2010 3. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that, the prayers raised by the petitioner are quite wrong and unfounded. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is violation of the agreement, it is for the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court. As such, no interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is dismissed. This Court does not express anything as to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, the Board or the other parties concerned. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc