IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19178 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.K.YOUSAF KOYA THANGAL,S/O.KASMI KOYA THANGAL,VALIYAPADAM HOUSE,CHETTIPPADI.P.O, PARAPPANANGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ASIYA @ KUNHUBEEVI,W/O.MUTHUKOYATHANGAL, VALIYAPADAM HOUSE,CHETTIPADI.P.O,PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION,PARAPPANANGADI. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SECTION,THIROORANGADI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 4. V.K.HASSAN KOYA @ BAVU,S/O.MOIDEEKUTTY, VETTIKUTHI HOUSE, CHETTIPADI.P.O,PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1&2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.19178 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The 4th respondent applied to have the single phase connection converted into three phase. That was objected by the petitioners. Then the Board moved the Additional District Magistrate who passed orders and allowed the application. That order was challenged by the Ist petitioner before this court in WP(c).No.28681/08. By Ext.P1 judgment rendered on 2nd June, 2009, this court upheld the order of the Additional District Magistrate but however clarified that if the petitioner in WP(c).No.28681/08 was aggrieved, it will be open to him to apply for shifting of the line. 2. Petitioners submitted Ext.P2 application to the first respondent praying for shifting and that the said application is pending. According to the petitioners, on its receipt the first respondent issued Ext.P3 notice calling WP(c).No.19178/09 2 upon the petitioners to produce consent letters of the persons in the neighbourhood, who are likely to be affected, if the shifting as sought for is allowed. It is stated that meanwhile the petitioner also made Ext.P4 and Ext.P4(a) to the 3rd respondent and the Assistant Engineer for shifting the existing line also. It is stated that the aforesaid matters are pending and that in the meanwhile, attempt is being made to draw the line pursuant to the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, which was upheld by this court. 3. So long as Ext.P1 judgment upholding the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate is in force, the respondents are entitled to draw the line through the alignment mentioned in the said order. If so, the first petitioner cannot object to drawing line. Counsel for the petitioners contended that since WP(c).No.28681/08 was filed only by the Ist petitioner, the judgment cannot stand in their way in seeking an order not to draw the line. In my view, this contention is also misconceived for the reason that, as far the 2nd petitioner is concerned, Ext.P1 order of the ADM has become final and therefore she cannot avoid the binding WP(c).No.19178/09 3 nature of the said order. However, that does not mean that Ext.P2 application made to the first respondent for shifting the line or Ext.P4 application for shifting the existing line should not be considered. At the same time this court also would not be justified in granting the prayer made by the Counsel for the petitioner to direct that status quo should be maintained until orders are passed on Exts.P2 and P4, for the reasons that Additional District Magistrate's order has been upheld by this court. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. The first and the 3rd respondents to which Exts.P2 and P4 has been made by the petitioners shall consider those applications and pass appropriate orders. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and with notice to the parties concerned on the production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.19178/09 4