IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 28658 of 2009(B) PETITIONER(S): MALU AMMA,W/O.GOPALAN NAIR, KURUNKATTIL HOUSE,EDAKKARA (P.O.), CHELANNUR (VIA)-673 616. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,KAKKODI. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE-673 616. 4. NHERALIL VAYAPPURATH RAGHAVAN KURUPU, KURUNGATTIL,EDAKKARA P.O.,CHELANNUR-673 616. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,K S E B,KARAPARAMBA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,K.S.E.B., KOZHIKODE DIVISION. 7. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,K.S.E.B., KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-3,5-7 SRI.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R4 SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 28658/09 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF LETTER DT. 8-8-2006. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 21-4-2007. EXT.P3 NOTICE DT. 1-9-2007. EXT.P4 REPRESENTATION DT. 4-10-2008. EXT.P5 DO. DT. 24-12-2008. EXT.P6 REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY R4. EXT.P7 CERTIFICATE DT. 20-7-2001. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 27-2-2009 ISSUED BY ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P9 NOTICE DT. 27-4-2009. EXT.P10 REVIEW APPLICATION DT. 2-7-2009. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 5-8-2009. EXT.P12 RELEVANT PAGE OF RATION CARD. EXT.P13 OBITUARY COLUMN PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DT. 2-9-2001. EXT.P14 COPY OF FIR. EXT.P15 DEPOSITION OF PW1. EXT.P16 EVIDECE OF PW1 IN O.S.70/07. EXT.P17 EVIDENCE OF PW2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) LETTER DT. 8-8-2006. EXT.R2(b) LETTER SUBMITTED TO R2. EXT.R4(a) RELEVANT PAGE OF RATION CARD. EXT.R4(b) RELEVATION PAGE OF RATION CARD. EXT.R4(c) JUDGMENT IN O.S.70/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28658 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a widow aged 85 years. The 4th respondent is her brother. On 17-11-2001, the 4th respondent obtained an electricity connection by drawing electricity line through the petitioner's property. On 26-7-2006, the petitioner filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent complaining that the electricity line was drawn without obtaining consent from the petitioner and that the same was obtained by misrepresentation by the 4th respondent that the property actually belongs to the 4th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner wanted the 2nd respondent to disconnect the electricity supply to the 4th respondent by invoking powers conferred on him under Regulation 21(7)(e) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. Since the petitioner did not receive any favourable reply from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached the Additional District Magistrate by filing Ext. P5. The Additional District magistrate entertained the petition and passed Ext. P8 order, which, on the face of it, is an agreed order, whereby the petitioner agreed to bear the expenses for shifting the electricity line from the petitioner's property and the 4th respondent also agreed to the same. In accordance with the said agreement in Ext. P8 order, the Additional District Magistrate directed the 2nd respondent to shift the electricity line through the property standing in the name of the wife of the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P9 letter to the petitioner directing her to pay Rs.6,200/- and also to obtain consent from the owner of the property through which the line has to be drawn afresh. Alleging that the petitioner did not agree to pay Rs. 6,200/- towards expenses for the shifting and that the petitioner is not liable to obtain consent from anybody else, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate for review of the earlier W.P.C. No. 28658/09 -: 2 :- order, which was rejected by Ext. P11 order on the ground that Ext. P8 was an agreed order. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P8 and P11 as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to disconnect electric connection passing through the electric post No. PM8 leading to consumer No. CLR 9068 allotted to the 4th respondent. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to take appropriate legal action against the 4th respondent under Regulation 21(7)(e) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005.” 2. Although, initially, the petitioner wanted to argue the matter on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay the amount of Rs. 6,200/- as demanded in Ext. P9, if the petitioner is not required to obtain consent from the owner of the property through which the electricity line is to be drawn afresh, in which event, she does not press for any proceedings under Regulation 21(7)(e) also. This agreement was reached when it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that for 5 years after the line was drawn, the petitioner did not raise any objection and she herself had filed Ext. R2(b) consent letter before the 2nd respondent agreeing to pay the shifting charges. 3. The property through which the line has to be drawn afresh after shifting the same belongs to the wife of the 4th respondent admittedly. Therefore, I specifically put it to the counsel for the 4th respondent as to whether he or his wife has any objection in drawing the line through that property. In fact, the line is to be drawn to the benefit of the 4th respondent's wife also and therefore she cannot W.P.C. No. 28658/09 -: 3 :- object to the line being drawn through her property. Counsel for the 4th respondent submits that neither he nor his wife has any objection whatsoever in drawing the electricity line through the property of the 4th respondent's wife for shifting the electricity line. In view of the above agreement reached, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs. 6,200/- to the 2nd respondent, expeditiously. Within two weeks from the date of payment of the said amount, the 5th respondent shall shift the electricity line to the 4th respondent's property from the petitioner's property and draw the line though the property belonging to the 4th respondent's wife, as directed in Ext. P8 order without insisting on any further conditions. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/