IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7200 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PAULSON,S/O. OUSEPH AGED 42 YEARS,VEEPANATH HOUSE, PINARMUNDAKARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. HAMEED, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI AGED 48 YEARS, THEEYYATTIL HOUSE, PULASSERY PO, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. KUNJU MUHAMMED, S/O.UNNAYANKUTTY HAJI AGED 66 YEARS, CHETTYTHODY POOVATHUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE KULUKKALLOOR VILLAGE, KULAKKALLOOR KARA, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,TRANSMISSION SECTION, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TRANSMISSION SECTION, K.S.E.B,BRAHAMAPURAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 4. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING 440 K.V.SUB STATION, PALLIKKARA, KUMARAPURAM PO, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER R1 AND R2 BY ADV. MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R4 BY ADV. MR. MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, POWER GRID CORPORATION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 7200 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th March , 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are trying to draw 220 K.V. electric line by installing a tower in the property of the second and third petitioners and that drawing of the lines across the property is without getting consent of the petitioners and even without any regard to the pendency of Exts. P2 and P3 representations preferred before the first and second respondents respectively. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the objection raised by the petitioners is liable to be caused to be considered by the third respondent, who is the statutory authority in this regard and that the drawing of the lines as well as installation of the tower can be effected only subject to the orders to be passed by the third respondent. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents W.P.(C) No. 7200 of 2010 2 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier for similar reliefs confined against the 4th respondent by filing W.P.(C)No.6582 of 2010. The position was brought to the notice of this Court, on instruction, that the line was being drawn not at the instance of the 4th respondent but only at the instance of Board itself, upon which, the said Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Despite the above circumstance, the petitioners have approached this Court again for similar reliefs, also against the 4th respondent, which is devoid of any merit or bonafides, submits the learned Standing Counsel. 5. After considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to cause Exts.P2 and P3 representation to be referred to the third respondent/ADM within one week. On such reference, the matter shall be considered and finalised by the third respondent/ADM in accordance with law, W.P.(C) No. 7200 of 2010 3 after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of such reference. It is made clear that installation of the tower as well as drawing of electric line by the respondents 1 and 2 shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the third respondent/ADM in the above proceedings. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk