IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35313 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. ASHISH BUILDING, COCHIN-31, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER - LEGAL, RAJESH, MELETH VEETIL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN MELETH VEETTIL. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, CENTRAL ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -18. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BOARD SECRETARIAT, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.GOPI, S/O.K.A.VAMANA PAI, AGED 56 YEARS, GOPI NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 4. V.GOKULAN, S/O.K.A.VAMANA PAI, AGED 58 YEARS, GOKUL NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 5. V.KUMAR, S/O.K.A.VAMANA PAI, AGED 60 YEARS, KUMAR NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI FOR R3 ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT. P1(A) COPY OF RECEIPT DT 22.7.02. P2 COPY OF AGREEMENT DT 1.6.02. P3 COPY OF LETTER DT 29.5.07. P3(A) COPY OF POSTAL COVER. P4 COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DT 27.10.07. P5 COPY OF NOTICE DT 24.11.08. P6 COPY OF REPLY DT 26.11.08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R3(1) COPY OF ORDER DT 14.11.07. R3(2) COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT. R4(A) COPY OF WILL DT 31.1.91. R4(B) COPY OF TAX RECEIPT. R4(C) COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 2.12.08. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35313 OF 2008 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner took a roof top and accessory room vide Ext.P3. Thereafter, the petitioner is now faced with Ext.P5 notice. In Ext.P5, the petitioner has been called upon to produce documents of title or the consent obtained from the co owner. Ext.P5 is challenged before me. 2. I heard both sides. Learned counsel appears for the 4th respondent, who claims to be a co owner and whose consent was not obtained in the matter of the grant of release in favour of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent, points out that by Ext.P5, the petitioner is called upon to produce the documents of title or to produce consent. It is pointed out that Ext.P5 is issued on the basis of the complaint by the 4th respondent. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent points out that actually civil court was approached by the 4th respondent in the matter of two civil suits. 3. Having heard the parties, I feel that the petitioner can be called upon to respond to the notice and a decision will be WPC.35313/08 : 2 : taken by the 1st respondent with notice to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 within ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. I make it clear that in case the order is adverse to the petitioner, there will be no disconnection pursuant to the said proceedings for ten days from the date on which the order is passed and communicated. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE