IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13739 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.T.ABRAHAM,AGD 45,S/O.THOMAS, CHEMBLAIL HOUSE,MATTUTHAVALAM P.O, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE,PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,IDUKKI. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,TRANSMISSION DIMENSION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THODUPUZHA. SRI. P. THAJUDEEN S C FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.13739 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he is the owner of 1.750 cents of land in Upputhara Panchayat. According to him he wants to construct a building in the said land and that the application made to the Panchayat for building permit is pending. It is stated that at that stage, an overhead line has been drawn across his property. Thereupon Petitioner submits that he filed Ext.P5 before the Addl. District Magistrate and Ext.P5 is pending. 2. Taking note of the aforesaid allegation, when the writ petition came up for orders before this court on 15.5.2009 this court directed the Standing Counsel to get instruction in the matter and further directed the parties to maintain status quo. In the meanwhile, as according to the petitioner, the line has not been energised so far. WP(c).No.13739/09 2 3. Today, when the matter came up for orders, Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the line does not pass thorough any portion of the petitioner's property. Yet another submission that is made by the standing counsel for the Board is that when the line was drawn the petitioner had not raised any objection in the matter. 4. The submission made by the standing counsel for the Board is refuted by the counsel for the petitioner, mainly stating that the Board has, without ascertaining the correctness of the said statement with reference to the plan or measurement of the building in making the assertion. According to him, the line passes thorough his property and it was therefore that he moved the District Magistrate by fling Ext.P5. 5. Having regard to the repeated assertion of the petitioner that the line passes through his property, since the controversy requires verification of facts, I feel that it is only appropriate that the District Magistrate before whom Ext.P5 is WP(c).No.13739/09 3 pending shall consider this issue. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent before whom Ext.P5 is pending to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.13739/09 4