IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3189 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- A.V.JOY, AREEKAL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., KIDANGOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALADY. 3. K.A.SHAJI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, APPLE A' DAY PROPERTIES, BYE-PASS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.A.V.THOMAS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ................................................... WP (C) NO. 3189 OF 2010 ............................................... Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court mainly seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to refrain from energising the present electric line drawn touching the property of the petitioner in Block No:9 in Re. Sy No: 475/11 of Nedumbassery (Chengamanad) Village, Aluva Taluk, Kidangoor and installing a transformer/stay wires in the property of the petitioner. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits on instructions and with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed that the averments and allegations raised in the writ petition are absolutely devoid of any merit or bona fides, in so far as the present work is only with regard to the replacement of LT line with the 11 KV line. It is also brought on notice of WP (C) NO. 3189 OF 2010 2 this Court that the transformer has actually been placed within the premises of the 3rd respondent, in favour of whom the present modification is being implemented, so as to boost up the capacity of the line. With regard to the stay wire, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the same was in existence for more than a decade, simultaneously asserting that the entire line as revealed from Exhibit R2(a) photographs and also as clearly shown in Exhibit R2(b) sketch, is passing through the public road and it has never encroached into the property of the petitioner in any manner. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to call interference. Accordingly interference is declined. Wit Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc