IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13620 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AJAYAKUMAR.M.G., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, GEETHA MANDIRAM, PARANDAKKUZHI, THATTATHUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., KILIMANOOR SECTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. LALITHAMMA, CHARUVILAPUTHAN VEEDU, PARANDOKKUZHI, THATTATHUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RAJAN PILLAI, CHARUVILAPUTHAN VEEDU, PARANDOKKUZHI, THATTATHUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KODAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.13620 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner's case is that, electric line was drawn to the premises of respondents 3 and 4 through and across the property of the petitioner. According to him, subsequently, with the consent of respondents 3 and 4, on an application made by him, the line was shifted through a pathway. It is stated that, now attempt is again made to shift the line back to the old alignment, without obtaining any consent or concurrence from the petitioner. 2. According to him, coming to know of the above attempt on behalf of respondents he filed Exts.P3 before the first respondent and Ext.P4 before the 5th respondent. It is stated that even on the complaints, no action whatsoever is taken. It is in these circumstances the writ Petition is filed. WP(c).N.13620/09 2 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that although the line was shifted as alleged by the petitioner, subsequently the 3rd respondent has filed a complaint that the consent letter produced by the petitioner was a fabricated document. It is stated that on receipt of the letter, when steps were taken for restoring the old position, petitioner raised objections and the matter stands at this stage. 4. Evidently therefore the petitioner is objecting to drawing the line through the earlier alignment. If that be so, it is necessarily a matter for the 5th respondent to interfere and resolve the issue. 5. Now that the petitioner himself has moved the 5th respondent by filing Ext.P4, I direct the 5th respondent to consider Ext.P4 with notice to the parties and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment and in the WP(c).N.13620/09 3 meanwhile the status quo as on date shall be maintained. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 5th respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).N.13620/09 4