IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19760 of 2010(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. CHEVU PILLAI.K.A, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.LATE HAMEED, KAMMOTH HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA P.O., ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.C.ANWAR, S/O.CHEVU PILLAI, KAMMOTH HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA P.O., ARAKKAPPADY VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.19760 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 7th December, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to shift the Transformer, stay wires and supporting platform with 11 KV electric lines from the property of the first petitioner lying in Survey No.388/19 of Arakkappady Village to the property of the second petitioner lying in Survey No.389/10-2-1 of Arakkappady Village which is situated on the northern side of the property of the first petitioner. It is stated by the first petitioner that he has already submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations carrying such a request before respondents 2 and 3. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the alleged delay in the matter of disposal of the said representations. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 in this writ petition. Along with the statement respondents 1 and 3 have produced a location sketch showing the location of the Transformer in question and also the order of the second respondent dated 10.2.2006 passed in terms of the provisions under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel appearing for WP(C).No.19760/2010 2 respondents 1 and 3. 4. Curiously despite making a statement in the writ petition that the request of the first petitioner was rejected by the second respondent the petitioners did not choose to challenge the order passed by the second respondent which is produced by respondents 1 and 3 as Annexure II. In short, there is no challenge against Annexure II order passed by the second respondent on the complaint preferred by the third respondent in the light of the objections raised by the petitioners. Annexure II would reveal that the first petitioner was heard in the matter prior to the passing of Annexure II order. In the context of the contentions of the petitioners it is relevant to refer to the following portion of Annexure II order: “It is also pointed out by the petitioner that the property in question has to be filled if the respondents want to put the property in use and if they act accordingly the drainage passing through the area will be blocked resulting in the floods during the rainy season. Even if the transformer is shifted the respondents cannot fill the land blocking the natural flow of water. In the result, I find no reason to pass an order to shift the transformer from the existing spot. The respondents may approach a competent Civil Court in this regard for compensation if the rules permit.” WP(C).No.19760/2010 3 The contention of the first petitioner is that he is a person having only 1.25 cents of property lying in Survey No.388/19 of Arakkappady Village and on account of the adamant attitude on the part of respondents 1 and 3 he is not in a position to effect any construction in the said small plot having only an extent of 1.25 cents. 5. When this matter came up for consideration, taking note of the submission and contention that the first petitioner is the owner of a small piece of land having only an extent of 1.25 cents this Court directed the respondents to get instruction as to whether it could be shifted from the present location. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 submitted that the Transformer in question has been installed in a puramboke land. That apart, the above extracted portion of Annexure II would reveal that even in case the Transformer in question is shifted from the present location it would not enable the petitioner to enjoy the said property on account of the specific reasons mentioned therein. Though in the said order such specific reasons have been assigned for declining the request of the first petitioner, the first petitioner did not choose to challenge Annexure II order. I am of the view that on account of the said sole reason this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In other words, even after suffering an order which was WP(C).No.19760/2010 4 passed under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act the petitioner had not chosen to challenge the same. When there is no challenge against such an order the petitioners cannot maintain this writ petition. The matter has been concluded as per Annexure II order dated 10.2.2006 and the same has become final. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition is absolutely bereft of any merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge