IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26135 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- WATERFRONT ENCLAVE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (ER-371/07) WATERFRONT ENCLAVE ,CHILAVANNOOR KOCHI 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT NINAN C.GEORGE, AGED 62, S/O.C.N.GEORGE WATERFRONT ENCLAVE ,KADAVANTHRA PO, KOCHI-20 BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICLA SUB DIVISION, K.S.E BOARD COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ERNAKULAM. 3. CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. M.S.ARAVIND SAVIDHAM, CHILAVANNOOR PONNETH TEMPLE ROAD JUNCTION, KADAVANTHRA PO,KOCHI-20 ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R3 SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI FOR R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO. 26135 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner is an association of residents of Waterfront Enclave at Chilavanoor. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 not to shift the transformer to the Waterland Road Junction as directed in Ext.P6 order. In the context of the contentions it is relevant to refer to the directions issued by the second respondent as per Ext.P6. As per Ext.P6, it was directed to shift the transformer in question at the expense of the 2nd respondent herein, to the southern side of the Water front Road junction where the basement for Ring Main Unit was already been constructed, by keeping Electricity Act and Rules. Consequently, it was directed to shift the transformer in terms of the above direction. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. When this matter is taken up today the learned counsel on both sides submitted that the parties have no grievance or dispute with respect to the location viz., the proposed location for W.P. (C) NO. 26135 OF 2010 2 shifting the transformer. The grievance raised only with respect to the manner in which it is proposed to be installed in the said proposed location. In short, according to the petitioner, it shall not be installed in such a manner to project to the public road. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that it will be shifted and installed strictly adhering to the provisions relating the same. There is no reason for any apprehension for the petitioner as also for the 4th respondent that it will be installed in such a manner to cause hindrance and inconvenience to the public for their conveyance through the aforesaid public road. Definitely, the officials of the the first respondent will take all the endeavour to install the transformer in such a manner not to project into the public road and shall be installed on the extreme side to prevent any such intrusion and taking into account the place available therein. It will open to the first respondent to shift the transformer as directed in Ext.P6, subject to the above observations. It shall be done expeditiously. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. mns