IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35185 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SARASWATHI MENON, `JYOTHIS' KUNNAMKULAM ROAD, OTTUPARA, WADAKANCHERY, THRISSUR-680 590. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., WADAKANCHERI. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 35185 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents are proposing to establish a transformer on the public road in front of the petitioner's house in such a way as to hinder the access to the petitioner's house from the road. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2nd Respondent to drop the proceedings for the installation of the High Voltage power transformer in front of the compound wall of the house of the Petitioner and to shift it to somewhere else. b) writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2nd Respondent not to proceed further with the installation of the transformer in front of the compound wall of the house of the Petitioner. c) Direct the 2nd Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 representation after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and stay the proceedings till then.” 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board would contend that the transformer is placed in such a way as not to hinder the petitioner's access to his house. In fact he would contend that it is after the Electricity Board started the work of establishing the transformer that the petitioner shifted the gate nearto the place where the transformer is proposed to be established. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 2 4. From Ext.P1 photographs produced by the petitioner themselves, it is abundantly clear that the gate of the petitioner's house is a newly constructed one and in fact the construction has not been completed. The Electricity Board has already placed poles required for establishing the transformer. It appears that it is afterwards that the petitioner has shifted the gate to in front of the posts. Even otherwise, from the photographs produced by the petitioner themselves as also another photograph produced by the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board, it is clear that the poles do not hinder the petitioner's entrance to his house. Even otherwise, I am of opinion that in the facts of this case, public interest should prevail to the alleged right of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge