IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35219 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS THENGILAZHIKATHU HOUSE, KARIKKAM, ULIYANADUMURI VETTIKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (KSEB)VYDHYUDHI BHAVAN,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (KSEB) ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, VYDHYUDHI BHAVAN, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, KPFC BHAVANAM, CV RAMANPILLAI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10 ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.35219 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T It is seen that pursuant to the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, the question regarding the feasibility of shifting a transformer was considered by the Assistant Executive Engineer, the 2nd respondent, and by Ext.P4, the petitioner was informed that it is not feasible to shift the transformer. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Exts.P4 & P5, he has filed Exts.P6 & P7 before the 4th respondent invoking its power under Rule 3(3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, framed under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. In this writ petition, what is sought for is a direction for the consideration of the aforesaid two revisions. 2. However, on a perusal of the pleadings, what is seen is that it was pursuant to the power of the Additional District Magistrate under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, that he directed consideration of the request of the petitioner for shifting the transformer. It was pursuant to such power, that Exts.P4 & P5 WP(C) No.35219/2008 -2- were issued. If that be so, the exercise of power resulting in Exts.P4 & P5 were not under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, in which event only the revision under Sub Rule 3 of the Rules is permissible, and therefore, this Court will not be justified in directing consideration of Exts.P6 & P7. The writ petition fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg