IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36425 of 2009(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.S.ARVIND, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 'SAVIDHAM', CHILAVANNUR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20. BY ADVS. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SMT.BINDU GEORGE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, K.S.E.BOARD, POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, GIRINAGAR, KOCHI. 4. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 5. WATER FRONT ENCLAVE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY V.K.NAIR, WATER FRONT ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. 6. C.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNA MENON, VAYALIL ANURAG CROSS ROAD, THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM. 7. P.K.THANKAM, D/O.KUNHIKRISHNA MENON, PRABATH HOUSE, 43/2358, TEMPLE ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 BY ADV. MR.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.36425 of 2009 -W ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this Writ Petition is whether the first respondent is right in keeping the dispute with regard to the shifting of the transformer in abeyance, while the authorities under the Kerala State Electricity Board are proceeding with the steps for laying the cables so as to connect the same to the transformer where it exists as on date. 2. The sequence of events as projected by the petitioner shows that the transformer was installed on the southern side of the properties, which was close to the petitioner's house by about 1.5 meters. Subsequently, the petitioner took up the matter before the Board for shifting the transformer to another convenient place as suggested. 3. After considering the facts and figures, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.53,000/- for shifting the transformer to the alternate site. It is stated that the petitioner has remitted the amount. But subsequently, the residents association of W.P(C) No.36425 of 2009 -W 2 the locality approached this Court challenging the order passed by the first respondent for shifting the transformer; whereupon the same was set aside and the matter was directed to be considered afresh by the Additional District Magistrate, after hearing all the parties concerned within six weeks as specified therein. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite the specific direction given by this Court, the matter is still kept in cold storage by the Additional District Magistrate and in the meanwhile, the KSEB has started laying the underground cables. It is contended that, once the cables are connected with the transformer, the petitioner would not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the order likely to be passed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submits with specific reference to the statement filed on behalf of the Board, that the work has to be completed in a time bound manner, as it comes within the project of the Kochi City Automation Scheme, whereby nearly 200 Kms 11 KV Over Head lines in the city will be altered to under ground cables for maintaining uninterrupted power supply in Kochi city. The execution of the said work was started on 5.10.2009 and targeted to be completed before W.P(C) No.36425 of 2009 -W 3 31.3.2010. It is also stated in para 3 of the said statement that, even if the under ground cable is connected to the transformer, the transformer will be shifted, if the Additional District Magistrate directs such shifting. More so, when the Board is bound to comply with the direction of the Additional District Magistrate; who is the statutory authority in this regard. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submits on instructions, that the matter could not be finalised by the Additional District Magistrate due to many a reason including for want of some clarification to be furnished from the Electrical Inspectorate with reference to technical aspects, which is stated as being procured within no time. The learned Government Pleader however submits that the matter will be considered and finalised at any cost within one month. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the assertion made by the respondent Board in para 3 of the statement as to the feasibility aspect in removing the cables subject to the orders to be passed by the Additional District Magistrate, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner in this Writ Petition appears to be acted upon and this Court does not find it fit and W.P(C) No.36425 of 2009 -W 4 proper to keep the Writ Petition pending any further. 7. In the above facts and circumstances, the contents of the statement filed on behalf of the Board and the submission made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of Additional District Magistrate are recorded. The first respondent/Additional District Magistrate is directed to finalise the proceedings forthwith, also considering the feasibility of the alternate site now suggested by the petitioner on the southern side of the Water Front Road Junction, where the basement for Ring Maintenance Unit has already been constructed. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab