IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 16508 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI.G., KINARUVILAYIL PADEETTATHIL, VETTIYAR P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B., CHENGANOOR. 3. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVION, ARANMULA. 4. GOVINDAN, MATTAROOTTINAL, VALLANA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 5. SANTHA, MATTAROOTTINAL VALLANA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 & R3 BY P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 16508 of 2010(K) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.02.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA AT DUBAI, U.A.E............................... EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 07.5.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT..................... EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE ALTERNATE ROUTE......................... RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.16508 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner having absolute title and possession over properties comprised in Re-Survey Nos.436/4, 436/17, 436/19 and 436/9 of Aranmula Village in Pathanamthitta District. They lie as a single plot. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take urgent steps to shift the posts erected in the aforesaid property without his knowledge and consent for drawing electric line to the residential house of 4th and 5th respondents. According to the petitioner, the respondents have already installed four posts in his property without his consent taking advantage of his absence on account of his avocation. On coming to know about such installation, the petitioner has raised objection. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that in the light of the objection raised by the petitioner, they have already approached the first respondent with a prayer to pass an order under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act r/w Section 64 of the Electricity Act. According to the learned counsel, the matter is now pending before W.P.(C) NO.16508/2010 2 the first respondent and the first respondent has not passed orders on the complaint solely on account of pendency of this Writ Petition. The learned Government Pleader has also endorsed the same. On 28.5.2010, when this matter came up for admission this court ordered notice on admission to respondents 4 and 5. However, they did not enter appearance. In view of the fact that pursuant to the objection raised by the petitioner, the matter was taken up before the competent authority by respondents 2 and 3 and the matter is now pending before the first respondent, I am of the view that the sustainability of the contentions raised by the petitioner could better be ascertained by the first respondent in the pending proceedings. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to take a decision, in accordance with law, on the complaint preferred by respondents 2 and 3 in the matter of drawing of lines to the residential building belonging to respondents 4 and 5, with notice to all parties concerned including the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P3 objection before the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent shall also look into Ext.P3 objection of the petitioner while passing orders. This shall be done by the first respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a W.P.(C) NO.16508/2010 3 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Status quo shall be maintained till the passing of orders in terms of the above directions. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.16508/2010 4 T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010