Dismissed

K.S.E.Board and Others v. Sabu Mukelel

Kerala HC3 Aug 2007RP/715/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition was dismissed. The Court left the substantive dispute regarding the electricity connection to be resolved in the pending writ petition, allowing the soldier-responder to pursue all contentions and seek writ remedies if connection remains denied.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition is dismissed, leaving freedom to the respondent to raise contentions in the original W.P.C. and to approach the Court for orders on denial of electric connection.

K.S.E.Board and Others Vs Sabu Mukelel — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2007 / 12TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

RP.No. 715 of 2007(F) --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23362/2006 Dated 31/05/2007

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶7

¶8

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KANNUR.

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PAYYANNUR.

¶11

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PADIYOTCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB

¶13

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER

¶14

¶15

SABU MUKELEL, UDAYMKANAKUNDU, P.O.CHUNDA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANNUR)

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.

¶19

R.P. NO. 715 OF 2007 IN W.P.C. NO.23362 OF 2006

¶20

Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Since respondent in the Review Petition is a serving soldier this

¶23

Court ordered electric connection to his house. However the petitioners in the Review Petition declined connection on the ground that the building to which connection is sought is not in the respondent's name. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the objection of the Board, the building is transferred in the name of the respondent in whose favour connection was ordered by this Court and the correctness of the decision of the Board to deny the connection itself is to be considered. In the circumstances, Review Petition is dismissed leaving freedom to the respondent to raise all contentions in the WPC. If connection is not given in terms of the interim order dated 31.5.2007, respondent can move this Court for contempt. If the respondent is on duty and is not in station, his wife or any near relative will be allowed to represent him.

¶24

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge

¶25

K.S.E.Board and Others v. Sabu Mukelel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.E.Board and Others v. Sabu Mukelel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Rajagopal Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative

Shahul Hameed Vs District Collector

P.K.Joseph Vs K.S.E.B.

Shehsad Vs K.Shereffuddin

Kerasree Coconut Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B.

Moidu Vs the Addl.District Magistrate