IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24354 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SAINUDHEEN,S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 54 YRS. VENDALLUR, ERUMBILIYAM P.O., VALANCHERRY VIA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDHYUTH BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB VALANCHERRY SECTOIN OFFICE, VALANCHERRY-MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-676552. 3. VADAKKANAZHIYIL NAZAR @ ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 40 YRS,PAINKANNUR P.O., KUTTIPURAM VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-670590 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R3 ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO.24354 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT This writ petition virtually reveals sibling quarrel. The elder brother filed this writ petition mainly with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to refer Ext.P1 to the 4th respondent and to defer the drawing of electric lines as sought for by his younger brother, the 3rd respondent till a decision is taken by the 4th respondent on the issue. Ext.P1 is the objection submitted by the petitioner dated 2.8.2010, on coming to know about the proposal of the 2nd respondent to draw electric line based on the application by the 3rd respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are co-owners as well, in respect of the property in question having an extent of 1 acre and 96 cents. According to the petitioner the building in question is an old one in a dilapidated condition. According to the petitioner drawing of electric lines towards the house in the property in question would necessarily entail cutting and removing of several valuable trees standing in the property. His contention is that the 3rd respondent wants to cut and remove trees standing in the W.P. (C) NO.24354 OF 2010 2 property under the guise of obtaining power connection. That apart, the 3rd respondent's attempt is to obtain an electric connection in his name in respect of the said dilapidated house to establish exclusive possession of the property and the residential building and to work out the same to the prejudice of the petitioner. It is in the said circumstances that he has submitted Ext.P1 objection before the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner when such an objection has been received the 2nd respondent is duty bound to refer the matter to the 4th respondent. It is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of 2nd respondent to refer Ext.P1 the matter to the 4th respondent that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed jointly, by the respondents 1 and 2 in this writ petition. It is stated therein that the 3rd respondent had applied for an electric connection to the house situated in the property referred above by producing the residence/ownership certificate issued by the Secretary, Kuttippuram Grama Panchayat. The said certificate has been issued exclusively in the name of the 3rd respondent, it is stated. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent remitted the cash deposit, the requisite fee for getting the electric connection. Since the 3rd W.P. (C) NO.24354 OF 2010 3 respondent has applied without remitting the OYEC charges, the service connection is yet to be sanctioned. The Kerala State Electricity Board as per Board Order dated dated 21.7.2010, sanctioned to effect service connection under NDOH category to those registered up to 31.3.2010. Further, it is stated that they have not attempted to draw the line as alleged by the petitioner. It is not known how, the 3rd respondent, the applicant has obtained ownership certificate exclusively in his name when admittedly the entire property still remains undivided and the petitioner and 3rd respondent are co-owners of the same. Being a co-owner 3rd respondent can submit an application for getting electric connection, but, at the same time such an application cannot be accompanied by a certificate showing him as the exclusive owner of the house in question. Obviously, the said certificate was issued by the Secretary, Kuttippuram Grama Panchayat and it is not known as to under what authority he has issued ownership certificate to the 3rd respondent, that too showing him as the exclusive owner. In this writ petition notice on admission has been issued to the 3rd respondent by speed post. Despite the receipt of notice he has not entered appearance. Admittedly, this writ petition carries a specific W.P. (C) NO.24354 OF 2010 4 allegation to the effect that the 3rd respondent's attempt was to obtain an electric connection in his name to establish his exclusive possession over the property and the residential building thereon. In this circumstances, I am of the view that the attempt on the part of the petitioner to protect his right over the property cannot be viewed with suspicion. The petitioner is, therefore, justified in seeking reference of issue before the authority to obtain sanction under Section 16(1) of Telegraph Act to decide the objection of drawing of electric lines, especially in view the fact that the 3rd respondent had made the application accompanied by an ownership certificate showing him as the exclusive owner of the house. It is made clear that the above observations shall not be taken as findings against the 3rd respondent's right to seek electric connection. They are made solely for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. 3. According to the learned standing counsel the 2nd respondent is not the competent authority to refer Ext.P1 objection. But at the same time it is admitted that Ext.P1 has been received by the 2nd respondent. Prima facie, Ext.P1 carries objections of the petitioner with respect to drawing of lines. Therefore, the competent authority under the 1st respondent viz., W.P. (C) NO.24354 OF 2010 5 Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E.B, Valancherry shall refer the objection submitted by the petitioner for adjudication under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act to the 4th respondent. Any further action on the application by the 3rd respondent shall be taken only after and only based on the decision by the 4th respondents to be taken in accordance with law. To enable, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E.B, Valancherry, to refer the objection, the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before that authority. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. mns