IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1605 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26497/2011 Dated 17/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- SANTHABHANU PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. UDAYABHANU PILLAI, KONAKKATTU CHENKALIL HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAVELIKKARA-688 101. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRCITY BOARD, THATAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA-688 101. BY ADV. SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL (SC) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1605 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. This appeal is preferred against the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner. According to the appellant/petitioner, the respondent/Electricity Board is undertaking the construction of a transformer by the side of the road in front of his property. The petitioner had filed a suit for injunction to restrain the respondents from installing the transformer. That suit is pending. An application for interim injunction is also pending, it is submitted. Those proceedings are pending before the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara, as O.S.No.278/11, it is submitted. 3. It is during the pendency of that suit that the petitioner had come to this Court with the petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is significant to note that there is no allegation W.A.No. 1605 of 2011 -: 2 :- of mala fides or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. The short plank on which the relief claimed is that it would be more convenient to have the transformer installed by the side of the road elsewhere and not in front of the property of the petitioner. The petitioner intends to construct a commercial building in the 67 cents of land belonging to her, it is asserted. 4. The learned single Judge in the light of Reena v. Geena (2010 (2) KLT 155) took the view that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting invocation of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. The appellant/petitioner having moved the civil court has not shown satisfactory reasons to persuade this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution, it was held by the learned single Judge. 5. Admittedly the civil suit is pending even now. Admittedly the application for interim injunction is also pending. More importantly we note that there is no specific allegation of any mala fides or arbitrariness in the choice of the spot for installation of the transformer. 6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the learned single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 7. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We W.A.No. 1605 of 2011 -: 3 :- may hasten to observe that no observation in this judgment is intended to fetter rights, if any, of the petitioner/appellant to seek relief from the civil court. Needless to say that the civil court must expeditiously consider the prayer of the appellant/ petitioner for interim relief. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge