IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 43 of 2006(S) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN COC.557/2005 Dated 15/07/2005 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37439/2004 Dated 04/01/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K. BHARGAVI, W/O. NANU, AGED 48 YEARS, KOLADATHIL HOUSE, PATHIYARAKKARA, VADAKARA-673 111. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- N.L. BIJOY, S/O. NANU, ASSISTANT EXESCUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION SOUTH, VADAKARA. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 & 2 SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN(ADV.COMMISSIONE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.43 of 2006 in C.O.C. No.557/2005 in W.P.(C) No.37439 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008. ORDER This Review Petition is filed in a Contempt application which was closed based on submission of compliance of judgment by the counsel for KSEB. In view of the controversy between the parties, this court appointed Advocate Commissioner who along with the report has given a sketch. 2. After hearing both sides, I dispose of the Review Petition by directing the respondent to shift the post from the position "Y" in the Commissioner's sketch to the western side of the pathway i.e. in line with post "WXZ" without any delay. Shifting will be done by KSEB without collecting any cost of shifting from anybody. However, shifting should be done only if the same does not involve cutting of valuable trees. If shifting involves only cutting of minor branches of any tree, second respondent will shift the line by cutting such branches or shrubs. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms 2 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.43 of 2006 in Cont. Case (C) No.557 of 2005 in W.P.(C) No.37439 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008. ORDER The W.P.(C) was filed alleging that electric connection was given to the third respondent by drawing line over petitioner's property without her consent. When the matter came up before this court, it was reported that line was already drawn. Therefore, this court directed the second respondent to shift the line, if possible, to reduce the inconvenience to the petitioner namely, owner of the property. However, since nothing was done pursuant to the judgment by the second respondent, petitioner moved Contempt application in this court. When the Contempt Case came up before this court on 15.7.2005, compliance of the judgment was reported which has now turned out to be absolutely false and hence this review petition is filed. 2. Even though Senior Standing Counsel appearing for KSEB submitted that inconvenience cannot be reduced by shifting the line, petitioner has a case that line can be drawn through alternate route to reduce inconvenience to her property. While this is a controversial matter which 3 has to be decided after verification of facts, two aspects are brought to my notice. In the first place, the applicant for electric connection had not obtained any consent from land owner namely, petitioner in the W.P.(C) and she on the other hand, misrepresented that the land belong to her which led to drawing of line over petitioner's property without her consent. When this was brought to the notice of the Assistant Engineer, though he ordered disconnection which was the right thing to be done, the Executive Engineer appears to have interfered. Further representation made in this court in Contempt proceedings that the judgment is complied with was total falsehood, whether it be the contribution by the party or counsel. In any case before disposal of the Review Petition, I feel facts have to be verified particularly, when KSEB takes the stand opposite to the petitioner's that the line cannot be shifted to reduce the inconvenience to the land owner. 3. I, therefore, appoint, Smt.Shameena Salahudheen as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property of the petitioner over which line is drawn, hear her suggestions about the alternate route in the presence of the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB of the area and the third respondent and file a report in this court about the factual position and alternate routes, whether over property of the petitioner or otherwise, if available, to reduce the inconvenience to the petitioner and other land owners. The petitioner, 4 the third respondent and the KSEB official will give suggestions to the Commissioner for filing the report. The Commissioner should, if required, take measurements and in any case file a sketch along with the report showing present position and possible alternate routes and giving suggestions in the matter. The Commissioner should issue notice to second and third respondents in the W.P.(C) before inspection. In this case commission batta should be paid by KSEB and I order them to pay rupees fifteen thousand to the Advocate Commissioner. Post on 31.10.2008. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms