IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25605 of 2004(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ N.P.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI USHA BHAVAN, UDUMBANCHOLA P.O. IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. N.MOHANAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, UDUMBANCHOLA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA P.O. IODUKKI DIST. 3. UDUMBANCHOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, UDUMBANCHOLA P.O. IDUKKI DIST. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., UDUMBANCHOLA. (ADDL. RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED VIDE JUDGMENT.) R1 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESOLUTION NO.III(5) DT.11.2.1999 PASSED BY UDUMBANCHOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DETAILED ESTIMATE PREPARED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSFORMER PLATFORM AT UDUMBANCHOLA. P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MASS COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, UDUMBANCHOLA PANCHAYAT. P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESOLUTION NO.IV(4) DT.22.6.01 PASSED BY UDUMBANCHOLA PANCHAYAT. P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY R2 BEFORE R1 DT.6.6.01 RECEIVED ON FILE O.P. NO.2060/01. P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BEFORE R1 BY R3. P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DT.20.7.2004 ISSUED BY R1. P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DT.30.7.2004 PASSED BY R1 IN O.P. NO.2060/2001. P9: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SRI.SONY VARGHESE DT.8.9.2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 DT.2.4.2001. R2(a): TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXT.R2 NOTICE DT.5.4.2001. R2(b): TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE C.M.BABU DT.20.10.2004. R2(c): TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SRI.KUNJU CHARAMEL DT.20.10.2004. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.25605 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B., Udumbanchola, is made additional respondent. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the second respondent. Petitioner was the President of the Panchayat at the time the second respondent is stated to have demolished a platform constructed on puramboke land for shifting a transformer located nearby. Counsel for the petitioner contended that even though Panchayat has not spent amount for construction of the platform, it was done by the public through contributions and since the transformer serves public purpose, Panchayat has the authority to protect it. The second respondent is alleged to have demolished the construction because the platform was constructed in front of his property. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the previous owner of the property unsuccessfully contested a civil suit against location of the transformer and the second respondent is only a purchaser of the property. According to the petitioner, by force the second respondent demolished the construction made by the public for shifting the transformer which is already stated to be 2 in a dangerous condition causing inconvenience to traffic also. The order under challenge is passed by the Ombudsman holding that if the Panchayat has not spent the amount for construction, it has no authority to object demolition also. I am unable to uphold this order of the Ombudsman because Panchayat is bound to protect public interest and if public has spent money for construction of the platform for shifting the transformer, it is the duty of the Panchayat to protect it. However, since counsel for the second respondent submitted that the transformer can be located to a better place without causing inconvenience to his property, I feel the same can be done. However, since second respondent has demolished the construction which is confirmed by counsel appearing for the Panchayat, he has to construct it at his cost or to meet cost of construction. The transformer has to be located in such a way as to avoid inconvenience to the adjoining land owners. However, since transformer has to be in front of somebody's property, it should be located by the side of a large extent of property so that access is available to the property even after installing the transformer. The W.P. is accordingly allowed quashing the impugned order of the Ombudsman but with direction to the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB to locate a suitable place causing least inconvenience to the least number of land owners and to earmark the place and inform the second respondent who 3 will complete construction of the platform at his cost within one month from date of intimation from KSEB. The concerned Engineer will shift the transformer without any delay after construction of the platform. Since petitioner is no longer President of the Panchayat, third respondent will produce copy of this judgment before the concerned Engineer of the KSEB for compliance and for failure, to report to this court for initiating contempt proceedings. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms