IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9238 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SABEENA P.P., W/O. ABDUL NAZER, KALATHINGAL HOUSE, CHEACODE P.O., AREACODE (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION, VRINDAVAN COLONY, KOZHIKODE 17. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R2 G.P. SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 9238 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this court with the following reliefs; a). Call for the records of the case leading upto Ext.P4 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. b). Issue a writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to refrain from drawing Mysore-Areacode 400 KV line through the property owned by the petitioner's husband wherein construction of residential house is in progress. c). pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course and procedure followed by the respondents, who drew the 400 KV line through the property in question, are unsustainable and that the request of the petitioner to adopt the alternate proposal is not being properly adverted to. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits, with reference to the counter affidavit filed, WPC NO. 9238/2010 -2- that the averments and the allegations raised by the petitioner are devoid of any element of truth or bona fides. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the lawyer notice issued by the petitioner, a proper reply has already been given as borne by Ext.R2(a). That apart, if at all the petitioner was aggrieved in any manner, the petitioner could approach the second respondent with all the requisite documents, as observed by the 1st respondent in Ext.P4 and that the petitioner is not justified in rushing to this Court without pursuing such exercise. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is intending to approach the 2nd respondent for appropriate reliefs. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for redressal of the grievance, if any, as specified in Ext.P4. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. dpk dpk