IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16900 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SANTHA KUMARI, MEENAKSHIPURAM, NEDUNGOLAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. 2. GIRISH, S/O.LATE CHANDRASENAN, MEENAKSHIPURAM, NEDUNGOLAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., CHATHANNOOR SUB DIVISION, CHATHANNOOR. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16900 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The case has got a long history. The steps taken by the respondent Board to install a transformer to supply power at the requisite voltage in the locality stand stalled, because of objections raised from different corners, at different points of time. 2. The petitioners are having their property very near to the place where the transformer is installed. According to the petitioners, the transformer was proposed to be installed just in front of the property of the petitioners, so as to harass them, with intend to cause much hardship, in view of the ill will and enimity of some of the officers of the Board. 3. On coming across the idea of the officers of the Board, the petitioner approached the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Paravoor by filing O.S. 123/2006 seeking for a prohibitory injunction. There was an interim order in I.A.714/2007 whereby, the Court ordered on 22.06.2007 that the transformer might be energised only after approval of the Electrical Inspector, Kollam. It is stated that approval can be obtained only after completing the work, according to the Board and this attributed for the delay, for quite a long. 4. Meanwhile, on understanding that the prayers sought for 2 WP(C) No. 16900/2010 before the Munsiff's Court were not likely to be obtained ultimately, in view of the maintainability aspect, the suit was caused to be dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioners filed Ext.P1 application before the 3rd respondent on 29.12.2009 seeking for immediate interference. According to the petitioners, the said matter was posted on 05.05.2010, on which day, because of the nation-wide strike, there was no sitting and it was adjourned to 14.05.2010. On that day, the counsel engaged by the petitioner could not turn up. In the said circumstance, the matter was considered and finalised by the ADM who passed Ext.P2 order, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner permitting to instal the transformer as proposed and to have it energized, which in turn, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the Board submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit and the sketch produced and marked as Ext.R2(a), that the transformer has to be placed at the particular place where there is a 'road centre' and it cannot be taken outside to be planted elsewhere, as suggested by the petitioners, as the said place is situated far away and outside the 'road centre'. It is also pointed out that there is already an LT line from the point 'A to B', over which the 11 KV line has already been drawn subsequently, at the place as shown therein. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction at all, to deal with the alleged cause of action, in so far as the transformer is sought to be installed in public property 3 WP(C) No. 16900/2010 and there is no case that it is situated in the property of the petitioner. The learned standing counsel submits that the 3rd respondent despite having no power, jurisdiction or competence to deal with the installation of the transformer in a public place, the matter was still considered and Ext.P2 order was passed, admittedly in view of the default of the petitioners to turn up for the final hearing. 6. The correctness and sustainability of Ext.P2 order passed by the ADM is sought to be sustained by the learned Government Pleader as well. 7. Going by the materials on record, particularly the contents of Ext.P2 order passed by the ADM, the finding has been arrived at, not on the basis of the description of the materials on record particularly as to the objections raised by the petitioner and also feasibility, but because of the fact that the petitioners did not appear on the date of hearing. Merely for the reason that the petitioners did not turn up, the proposal put forth by the authorities of the Board was accepted, leading to issuance of Ext.P2. In other words, there is absolutely no discussion as to the contents of the petition/objection preferred from the part of the petitioners; which of course was available, forming part of the records before the 3rd respondent when Ext.P2 order was passed. 8. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be considered and finalised by the 3rd respondent afresh, passing 4 WP(C) No. 16900/2010 appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment within one week from the date of receipt of the same before the 3rd respondent failing which, the benefit granted by virtue of the judgment will stand automatically withdrawn. The issue regarding the jurisdiction of the ADM to deal with the matter is however left open. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc