IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26585 of 2006(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MUKKAM MUSLIM ORPHANAGE COMMITTEE, P.O.MUKKAM- 673 602. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY MOYIMON HAJI, GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, KUNNAMANGALAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, S.C, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26585/2006-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 14/11/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/11/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE R.1. BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE R.1. BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DTD. 15/09/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26585 of 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings of the Additional District Magistrate issued under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. One of the other complaints raised by the petitioner herein is with regard to the voltage fluctuation in the locality. 2. The petitioner is the Management of an Orphanage in which about 2,000 inhabitants who are destitutes are residing. They are having several charitable activities for the benefit of the public as well. It is pointed out that inside the compound of the orphanage a transformer has been placed. But when the proposal was made by the Kerala State Electricity Board to give 34 more connections from the very same transformer, the petitioner objected stating the reason that it will cause fluctuation in the voltage. The objection was placed before the first respondent as per Ext.P1. Final order passed as Ext.P2, is under 2 W.P.(C).No.26585 of 2006 challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service connections which were effected through the transformer, has resulted in fluctuation in voltage as far as the petitioner's premises is concerned. It is submitted that, even though complaints have been raised in the matter, nothing has been done so far to alleviate the grievances voiced by the petitioner. The learned standing counsel for KSEB submitted that, actually there is no fluctuation of voltage as complained by the petitioner. 4. This is a matter to be considered by a competent authority by conducting local inspections also. Therefore, an officer who is a superior in the hierarchy will have to inspect the premises to find out the veracity of the grievance voiced by the petitioner regarding the voltage fluctuation and to take effective remedial action. Therefore, the petitioner will approach the 3 W.P.(C).No.26585 of 2006 Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB, Kozhikode by filing appropriate request along with a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such representation, the said officer will conduct a local inspection to ascertain the actual situation and if it is found that there is a real fluctuation in the voltage as pointed out by the petitioner, appropriate steps will be taken to remedy the situation also. 5. Even though the petitioner has a challenge regarding the validity of Ext.P4, the permission for drawing line has been granted therein and it can be seen that Additional District Magistrate found that the route proposed is feasible. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ami/