IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26497 of 2011(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- SANTHABHANU PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O UDYABHANU PILLAI, KONAKKATTU CHENKALIL HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAVELIKKARA-688 101. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THATAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA-688 101. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. SAJEEVKUMAR K. GOPAL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 26497 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.278/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FILED ON 3.10.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P (C) No. 26497 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed for an order directing respondents 2 to 4 to shift the location wherein a transformer is proposed to be installed away from the southern boundary of the petitioner's property. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.278 of 2011 in the Court of Munsiff, Mavelikara for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, respondents 2 to 4 herein, from installing the transformer on the southern boundary of the petitioner's property. 2. A Full Bench of this Court has in Reena v. Geena (2010 (2) KLT 155) held that when the aggrieved party has already invoked one remedy, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court, the petitioner who has already instituted a civil suit in respect of the very subject matter cannot file a writ petition seeking the very same relief. The petitioner cannot in my opinion prosecute parallel remedies, one in the civil court and the other in this Court in respect of the same cause of action. The writ petition is in my opinion liable to be dismissed on that short ground. W.P.(C) No.26497 of 2011 2 I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prosecute the suit. The contentions of both sides are kept open. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26497 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 17th October, 2011 --------------------------------------