IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 5009 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAYAN T.JOHN, S/O.T.P.JOHN, RESIDING AT THEKKUMPURAM HOUSE, KANNAMPATHUR, CHENGALOOR P.O TRICHUR DIST, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, T.P.PAUL, S/O.LATE T.L.POULOSE, THEKKUMPURAM HOUSE, KANNAMPATHUR, THORAVU, PUDUKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT.MANJULA NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, AMBALLUR, TRICHUR DIST. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TRICHUR. *ADDL.R4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, ALAGAPPANAGAR, TRICHUR. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.03.2010 IN I.A.No. 3375 of 2010 ) R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 5009 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28th May , 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have installed stay wires and a post in the property of the petitioner in connection with the installation of a transformer. 2. The respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit, explaining the actual facts and circumstances and also Ext.R2(a) sketch showing the location of the property as well as the place where the transformer is located. The learned Standing Counsel further brought it to the notice of this Court that the prayer of the petitioner is to cause the transformer to be shifted to elsewhere, which however is not liable to be entertained. It is stated that the transformer was installed on the side of the road and not in the property of the petitioner, simultaneously adding that only the stay wire has been planted in the boundary of the property of the petitioner . The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the respondents do not have any objection to have the matter referred to the third respondent for considering the objection raised by the petitioner and that the line will be W.P.(C) No. 5009 OF 2010 2 energised only subject to the orders to be passed by the third respondent . 3. In the above circumstance, the second respondent is directed to cause the matter to be referred to the third respondent within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, on which event, the matter shall be considered by the third respondent in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the authorities of the Board as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that 'status quo' as on date will continue, till such orders are passed as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk