IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13152 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.K.YOUSAF KOYA THKANGAL AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KASMI KOYA THANGAL VALIYAPADAM HOUSE, CHETTIPPADI.P.O.,PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PARAPPANANGADI. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 3. V.K.HASSAN KOYA @ BAVU, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY VETTKUTHI HOUSE,CHETTIPPADI.P.O.,PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN FOR R3 SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 13152/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P2 : SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE SEOCND RESPONDENT DATED 23.8.2007. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION CUM REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.4.2008 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE NO:E3-19527/07 (IA/08) DATED 2.4.2008. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.13152 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, his brother, Sri. Kunhikoya and sisters, Smt.Muthu Beevi and Smt.Suhra Beevi are allegedly having properties in Resurvey No.28/1 of Neduva Amsom of Tirurangadi Taluk. The third respondent is running an oil mill. There is a single phase connection running across the property of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is running over his property and of his siblings. There is an attempt to convert single phase line to three phase line. Petitioner intends to construct a house in the property. If the present line converts into a three phase line, the petitioner will not be able to construct a house there to reside conveniently with his family. There is a public road having a width of 12 feet leading to the mill from the main road. The third respondent insisting on erection of more powerful three phase line through the private properties. This is the complaint of the petitioner. Petitioner and his siblings submitted Ext.P1 representation to the first respondent. Ext.P2 is the sketch. Second respondent called for report from the Tahsildar, who inspected the site on 9.8.2007 and the petitioner was not available at home to present his grievances. Ext.P3 is the report of the Tahsildar. Petitioner WPC.13152/2008. 2 submitted Ext.P4 application for calling for report from the Electrical Inspector, that is rejected by Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 order the second respondent has referred to the report and the statement of the Assistant Engineer stating that clearance and safety rules are same for single phase LT line and three phase LT line and there was no need for expert opinion. The second respondent has therefore found that further inspection by any other agency will drag the case. 2. I heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the Tahsildar, which was without notice to the party, lacking material particulars cannot be the basis for the decision and there is nothing wrong in calling for the report from the Electrical Inspector. Learned counsel for the Board submits that the Electrical Inspector has no role in the matter. But there is no objection in a senior officer of the Board, namely, Executive Engineer, filing a report in the matter. Counsel for the third respondent also submits that what is involved is only a conversion of a single phase line into a three phase line and in fact there is no need to consider the claim of the petitioner in regard to the alternate route and if at all it was for the petitioner to move the authority for the shifting of the existing line. WPC.13152/2008. 3 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I feel that the decision taken by the second respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner to get a report from the Electrical Inspector need not be interfered with. But having regard to the facts and the stand taken by the Board, in the interests of justice, I direct the Executive Engineer of the concerned division to conduct an inspection and give a report to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from today. Upon receipt of the report, the second respondent will give copy of the report to the petitioner and also to the third respondent and then conduct the hearing and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of the report. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb