IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12184 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MUHAMMED HAJI, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIUNNEEN, OORAKOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLILA, MANKADA, MANJERI. BY SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B.PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. P.K.ALAVI, POTTANKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O. VELLILA, MANKADA, MANJERI. 4. P.K.ALAVIKUTTY, PLAMPADIYAN KONDAPPURATH HOUSE, P.O.VELLILA, MANKADA, MANJERI. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN R4 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.12184/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPERTIES OF THE PARTIES. P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND THE ROUGH SKETCH BY THE K.S.E.BOARD TO THE ADM. P3 COPY OF THE REPORT AND ROUGH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY TAHSILDAR. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.24723/2006. P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. P7 COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE PETITIONER. P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE KSEB BOARD. P9 COPY OF THE RECEIPT TO THE K.S.E.BOARD AND REMITTED RS.6,831/- P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. P11 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.23173/2007. P12 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P13 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE DETAILS OF LINE ROUTE CONSTRUCTED FOR GIVING SERVICE CONNECTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12184 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a property through which electricity line has been drawn for giving electricity connection to the third respondent. The petitioner contends that originally, by Ext.P4 order, the fifth respondent, Additional District Magistrate approved a route through which the electricity line has to be drawn. Challenging that order, one Sri. Kunhi Unneen, the son of the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.24723/06. In that writ petition, this Court passed Ext.P5 judgment, approving the route approved by the fifth respondent, Additional District Magistrate. According to the petitioner, that approved route did not contemplate drawing of electricity line through the petitioner's property. Despite the same, the Electricity Board placed a post in the petitioner's property which was supposed to be point 'G' referred to in the approved route. The petitioner filed complaints against the same. Since he could not get reliefs from the Board, he filed W.P.(C)No.23173/2007. In the same, by Ext.P11 judgment, this W.P.(C)No.12184/08 2 Court directed the fifth respondent, Additional District Magistrate to consider the complaint of the petitioner regarding infraction of the terms of Ext.P4 order of the ADM and Ext.P5 judgment of this Court with a further direction that if the fifth respondent concludes that the line has been drawn in violation of Exts.P5 and P6, appropriate directions shall be issued to the Board officials to rectify the same. Pursuant to the same, the fifth respondent considered the matter and passed Ext.P13 order. In that order, the fifth respondent entered a specific finding that “it is found that the post referred as 'G' in the sketch and in P6 judgment (Ext.P5 judgment in this writ petition) situates in the property of Sri.Mohammed Haji, who is the father of Sri.Kunji Unneen”. It is further stated that “except this fact it is found that the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment have been complied with”. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that after having entered such a specific finding approving the petitioner's stand, the ADM went on further to say as follows: W.P.(C)No.12184/08 3 “On consideration of the entire facts of this case I feel that the fact relating to the ownership of the property taking in post 'G' is not an issue, as this property belongs to the father of the petitioner in P6 judgment. For the above discussed reasons it is found that the direction in P5 and P6 judgments are not violated and the petition is disposed of accordingly”. The petitioner contends that such finding is contrary to the earlier finding recorded by the fifth respondent himself. He points out that the route approved by Ext.P4 order of the ADM and Ext.P5 judgment of this Court did not contemplate drawing of electricity line through the petitioner's property at all. The Additional District Magistrate has in Ext.P13 order, which was passed pursuant to Ext.P11 judgment, specifically found that the post referred as 'G' in the sketch and the judgment is situated in the property of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ order or direction setting aside Ext.P13 order passed by the 5th respondent. b) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction compelling respondents 1 & 2 to shift the electric post and the electric line drawn through 23.5 cents of land in R.S.No.167/1Ci of Mankdaka Village belonging to the petitioner at their expense. W.P.(C)No.12184/08 4 c) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction compelling respondents 1 & 2 to draw the electric line from the existing main electric line on the Manjeri-Perinthalmanna PWD Road through the property of the 4th respondent give service connection to the 3rd respondent. d) direct respondents 1 & 2 to refund to the petitioner Rs.6,381/- remitted by him as per Ext.P9 receipt. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Additional District Magistrate. Nobody disputes before me that the fact that as per Ext.P4 order of the ADM and Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, drawing of electricity line through the petitioner's property was not in contemplation at all. If that be so, after finding that the post referred to as 'G' in the sketch and in the judgment is situated in the property of the petitioner, the ADM could not have concluded that the directions in Exts.P4 and P5 have not been violated. Therefore, Ext.P13 to that extent is bad. Consequently, that W.P.(C)No.12184/08 5 part of Ext.P13, which concludes that the directions in Exts.P4 and P5 are not violated, is quashed. Since Ext.P4 order of the ADM and Ext.P5 judgment of this Court did not contemplate drawing of electricity line through the petitioner's property and the ADM himself has also found the post at point 'G' has been placed in the petitioner's property, in accordance with Ext.P11 judgment, that is liable to be removed. Therefore, there would be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to remove the post at point 'G' in the sketch from the petitioner's property and see that the line is drawn strictly in accordance with the route approved in Ext.P4 order of the ADM as approved in Ext.P5 judgment of this Court. Expenses incurred for the same shall be borne by respondents 1 and 2 themselves and shall not be charged on the petitioner. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While doing so, respondents 1 and 2 shall see that there arises no occasion for another complaint that, despite this judgment, the line has W.P.(C)No.12184/08 6 again been drawn through the petitioner's property. They shall strictly see that no part of the line touches upon the petitioner's property. Drawing of the line shall only be after giving prior notice to the petitioner and others concerned. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.12184/08 7 W.P.(C)No.12184/08 8