IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15215 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABOOBACKER, VATTAKKANDAM, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. MAMMAD, VATTAKKANDAN HOUSE, PANTHRA MUKKATTAYIL, KERALA STATE.P.O, KARUVARAKUNDU VIA, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NILAMBUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALLIKAVU SECTION, KALLIKAVU.P.O, NILAMBUR TALUK. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WANDOOR SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, WANDOOR, NILAMBUR TALUK. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 15215 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “i) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to establish the 220 KVA transformer in front of the house of the petitioner. ii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to establish the transformer at spot “S” in Ext.P1 sketch or at any other convenient place. iii) direct the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P2 objection and pass appropriate orders by issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. iv) issue such other orders as this Court deems fit to grant in the nature of the case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the first respondent in not considering Ext.P2 representation for shifting the transformer from the proposed site, which is stated as in front of the house of the petitioner, to the location as pointed out in the sketch, is liable to be deprecated and appropriate direction is to be given in this regard. W.P(C) No. 15215 of 2010-B 2 3. Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, the learned standing appearing for the respondent Board submits, with reference to the materials on record, that even as per Ext.P1 sketch produced by the petitioner, it is clear that the house of the petitioner is situated on the opposite side of the road, whereas the transformer is proposed to be installed on the other side of the road. This being the position, there is not merit or bonafides in the request made from the part of the petitioner, seeking to have the same shifted to the front of the Panchayat land as shown in Ext.P1 or to any other place; submits the learned standing counsel. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that absolutely no right of the petitioner, much less any fundamental right is violated. No arbitrariness, no malafides is established. This Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, no interference is warranted. The Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab