IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5787 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MRS.VASANTHA, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, KORANGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POTTASSERI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. MRS.SHEEBA, D/O.DEVAKI, KUZHIYAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, M.P.10/383, MANASSERI, POTTASSERI, MUKKOM PO, KOZHIKODE. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 5787 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode permitting the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) to restore electricity supply to the residence of the second respondent by relaying the underground cable through which power supply was initially given. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that electricity connection was given to the residence of the second respondent by laying underground cables. This was done pursuant to an order dated 16.2.2001 issued by the Board. Such a course had to be adopted in view of the objection raised by Sri.Aboobacker to the drawing of an overhead line from the post erected in his land to provide electricity connection to the second respondent. The petitioner did not object to the laying of underground cable when it was initially laid in the year 2003. It appears, in the year 2008, due to overt act of the petitioner and her husband the underground cable was damaged. That compelled the second respondent to approach the first respondent who in turn took steps to restore electricity supply. The petitioner and her husband objected. The first respondent thereupon submitted Ext.P1 petition before the Additional District Magistrate requesting for his WPC No.5787/10 2 intervention. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 objection wherein she raised various contentions. The Additional District Magistrate over ruled the said contentions and permitted the first respondent Board to restore electricity supply to the residence of the second respondent. The said order is under challenge. 2. In my opinion, the challenge to Ext.P3 is misconceived. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that electricity connection was provided initially in the year 2003 to the residence of the second respondent by laying an underground cable. The second respondent was enjoying the electricity supplied through the underground cable till the supply was disrupted due to an overt act of the petitioner and her husband in the year 2008. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that electricity connection will be provided shortly to Sri.Shiju and from the post erected for the purpose, electricity connection can be given to the residence of the second respondent. It is not known at what point of time electricity connection will be given to Sri.Shiju. Therefore, in such circumstances, as the second respondent has been enjoying the power supply through an underground cable laid through the property of the petitioner herself, I am of the opinion that the second respondent is entitled to continue to enjoy the power supply. The order passed by the Additional District Magistrate cannot therefore said to be illegal. After all, by the impugned order, the WPC No.5787/10 3 Additional District Magistrate has only directed the status quo that obtained prior to the disruption of the power supply to be restored. In such circumstances, I find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P3. If as claimed by the petitioner, power supply is given to the residence of Sri.Shiju, at that stage, she can request the Board and its officers to provide electricity connection to the residence of the second respondent from the post erected for the said purpose and thereafter remove the underground cable. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that it will open to the petitioner if electricity connection is given to the residence of Sri Shiju, son of Devaki, to request the first respondent to remove the underground cable laid through her lands and to provide electricity connection to the residence of the second respondent from any one of the posts erected for the purpose of providing electricity connection to the residence of Sri.Shiju. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.5787/10 4 WPC No.5787/10 5