IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30933 of 2011(N) ----------- -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. NAFEESA, KUTTIYATH HOUSE, P.O.KODINHI - 676309, KADUVALOOR, THIRURANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA (CONSUMER NO.T4953). 2. PATTERY KUNNATH MOHAMMED HAJI, PATTERY KUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.KODINHI - 676309, KADUVALOOR, THIRURANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA (CONSUMER NO.T4952). 3. KOYAMU PAYAKKARA, PAYAKKARA HOUSE, P.O.KODINHI - 676309, KADUVALOOR, THIRURANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA (CONSUMER NO.T5147). 4. PATHOOR MOIDEEN, P.O.KODINHI - 676309, KADUVALOOR, THIRURANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA (CONSUMER NO.T5307). 5. P.K.KUNHAMMED, PATTERY KUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.KODINHI - 676309, KADUVALOOR, THIRURANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA (CONSUMER NO.T5597). 6. P.K.SIDEEQUE, PATTERY KUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.KODINHI - 676309, KADUVALOOR, THIRURANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA (CONSUMER NO.T8059). 7. FATHIMA, OTTATHINGAL HOUSE, P.O.KODINHI - 676309, KADUVALOOR, THIRURANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA (CONSUMER NO.T9919). 8. BIJJATHUTTY, PATTERY KUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.KODINHI - 676309, KADUVALOOR, THIRURANGADI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA (CONSUMER NO.T28973). BY ADV. SRI.KILLIYOOR P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR NS 2/- -2- RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KAKKAD, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505. 3. PATHOOR FIBER FACTORY, P.O.KODINHI - 676 309, KADUVALOOR, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY P.C.MOHAMMED HAJI, S/O.MOOSAKUTTY HAJI. 4. KOTHEARY ALI, S/O.KOTHEARY MOHAMMED KUTTY, P.O.KODINHI - 676 309 PAYYOLI, THIRURANGADI VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI. K.M. SATHYANADHA MENON,( S.C.) SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,(S.C.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: NS WP(C).No. 30933/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P-1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILLS RECEIPTS OF THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P-2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4.10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN EXT.P-4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE NS P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 30933 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners 8 in number, who are consumers of the Kerala State Electricity Board have filed this writ petition for an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from dismantling the electricity connection given to their residences from Pathoor Fibre Transformer. It is contended that with a view to help the third respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are taking steps to provide electricity connection to the petitioners from Kaduvaloor Transformer. The petitioners contended that if supply is given to them from Kaduvaloor Transformer there will be a drop in the voltage and other problems and that even now there are constant complaints from consumers who get power from Kaduvaloor Transformer . 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit dated 14.12.2011. In paragraph 9 thereof it is stated that it is difficult to maintain the line drawn across water logged paddy fields from Pathur Fibre Transformer during the monsoons and therefore it WP(C)No. 30933 of 2011 -2- was decided to supply power to the petitioners and other consumers from Kadavaloor Transformer. It is stated that both the transformers have the same capacity and that the voltage will be increased since the length of the line which supplies power from the Kadavaloor transformer to the petitioners' is shorter. The respondents have also denied the contention that there are frequent problems with respect to Kadavaloor Transformer. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board. The petitioners do not dispute the fact that electricity line is drawn from Pathur Fibre Transformer across a water logged area. The petitioners do not also dispute the fact that the line need be drawn only for a lesser length if they are supplied power from Kadavaloor Transformer. Such being the situation, if the Board and its officers thought it fit and proper that it is desirable to give power supply to the petitioners from another transformer after dismantling the electricity line drawn across water logged paddy fields, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot WP(C)No. 30933 of 2011 -3- sit in appeal over the wisdom of the said decision and direct the Board to maintain the status quo in the matter of supply of electrical energy. The Board is the best judge of the situation and if the Board thought it fit and proper that the power supply should be given in a particular manner from a particular transformer the petitioners cannot contend that the said decision should be set at naught. Though there is an averment to the effect that the attempt is to favour the third respondent so that the third respondent's factory can draw power exclusively from Pathur Fibre transformer, there is nothing on record to substantiate the said contention. Even if there is some merit in the said contention, the third respondent is running a factory which provides employment to many. Therefore in public interest also that decision can be sustained. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //true copy// PA to Judge.