IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7499 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALASUBRAMANIAN , 55 YEARS S/O.SUBRAMANIA GUPTHAN THRIKKAMPATTAKALAM, KULAPADAM, KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KSE BOARD MANNARKAD. 3. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSE BOARD ,KUMARAMPUTHUR. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. (R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7499 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondents, installing a transformer on the side of the property of the petitioner, which was sought to be shifted by filing Ext.P4 petition before the 4th respondent, District Collector, but not acted upon. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the transformer was planted by the respondents 1 to 3 to provide electric connection to a Mobile Tower belonging to M/s.TATA Infrastructure Ltd., without regard to the objections raised by the petitioner, since installation at the place as proposed was to cause serious hardships to the free ingress and egress to the property of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that there is an alternate spot, in front of the 'Anganawadi' situated nearby, and the place now located by the Board is not a feasible one, stating further that non consideration of the W.P.(C) No.7499 of 2010 2 request made by the petitioner to shift the transformer had caused much loss and hardship to the petitioner. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submits, with reference to the contents of the statement and the sketch produced, that the proposal to install 100 KVA transformer at the place was considered under the OYEC Scheme, to provide electricity for the Telecommunication Tower erected by M/s.TATA Infrastructure Ltd., who is not a party to the present proceedings. Necessarily, 11 KV line was drawn to an extent of one kilometer, on satisfying the requirements by the party concerned, including by effecting a deposit of Rs.6,49,184/-, as early as on 10.8.2009, towards the cost and installation. It is also stated that the area is facing acute voltage problem and there were widespread complaints from the consumers in this regard, which is also stated as rectified by installing the transformer. W.P.(C) No.7499 of 2010 3 4. Materials produced by the petitioner himself, as borne by Exts.P2 and P6, reveal that the 11 KV line is passing along the side of the public road and the transformer has been installed on the side of the road. The petitioner's property, having an extent of nearly 29 cents of land, covered by Ext.P1 title deed, is situated on the side of the road, where some rubber cultivation is seen done by the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel that the residential building of the petitioner is situated 'nearly 65 meters away' from the transformer point and that the property of the petitioner is having 50-60 meters of road frontage, while the transformer is located on the extreme corner of the property, leaving only one meter to the boundary and the junction. 5. Taking note of the facts and figures as above, this Court finds that this is not a fit case, where any interference is warranted, nor does the matter require to be considered by the 4th respondent, who is the concerned authority to adjudicate the dispute with regard to the drawing of the line. The Writ W.P.(C) No.7499 of 2010 4 Petition is devoid of any merit or bonafides. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE. nj.