Disposed

Hyder K.Moonniyoor v. Kseb

Kerala HC22 Mar 2010WP(C)/4332/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a petition seeking mandamus directing the respondent Board to repair street lights. The Court directed a joint inspection to identify authorised connections and defects, requiring the petitioner to supply spares within one month to enable the Board's duty.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to conduct a joint inspection. Directed petitioner to supply adequate spares within one month from the date of the judgment.

Hyder K.Moonniyoor Vs Kseb — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 4332 of 2010(N)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

HYDER K.MOONNIYOOR S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, VETTIATTIL HOUSE, P.O.MOONNIYOOR SOUTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (PRESIDENT, MOONNIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH).

¶10

BY ADV. MR.R.RAMADAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------------------

¶13

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, TIRUR-7, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, THALAPPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B .

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶20

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.4332 of 2010

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court, for the

¶24

following reliefs:

¶25

“a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to carry out the necessary repairs to the street lights and also to replace the defective electrical parts and bulbs so as to maintain the street lights properly, within the limits of the Moonniyoor Panchayath, as expeditiously as possible, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶26

b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to ensure that the street lights within the limits of the Moonniyoor Panchayath is maintained properly.

¶27

c) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem to fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.”

¶28

2. Obviously, the crux of the contentions made by the

¶29

petitioner is in respect of the alleged lapses on the part of the Electricity Board, in ensuring that the street lights are properly maintained. It is contended, despite the many a request made by the Panchayath, no proper and effective

¶30

W.P.(C).No.4332 of 2010

¶31

¶32

action has been taken.

¶33

The respondents, in the counter affidavit have denied the averments and allegations raised by the Panchayath, stating that, all possible steps have already been taken by the Board and the defect if any, is only because of the inaction on the part of the petitioner Panchayath. It is stated that, the liability of the Board is only to provide necessary electrical energy and to replace the bulbs and tubes as and when they are supplied by the concerned local authority, here the petitioner. It is also stated in paragraph3 of the counter affidavit that the number of bulbs handed over by the petitioner Panchayath to the KSEB during the past few years are only '50' bulbs and the same were replaced by the Board then and there. It is also stated that the Board is ready and willing to do its duty in maintaining the street lights properly, provided the petitioner handover necessary spares.

¶34

In this context, it is relevant to note the specific averments made from the part of the Board in paragraph-4 of

¶35

W.P.(C).No.4332 of 2010

¶36

¶37

the counter affidavit, which is extracted below:

¶38

“In paragraph-4 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner stated that the 2^nd respondent has directed the 3^rd respondent on 30.6.2009 to take necessary action in the matter. Only 50 bulbs were handed over to K.S.E.Board thereafter on 7.9.2009 and they were promptly replaced. It is submitted that K.S.E.Board is willing and ready to do its duty in maintaining street lights properly provided the petitioner handover necessary spares. In this context the following points are also brought to the notice of this Honourable Court:

¶39

There are a number of unauthorized streetlights fittings fitted by the ward members at their places of interest. These are not regularised and so K.S.E.B cannot maintain them. In fact K.S.E.Board is bound to dismantle them.

¶40

In the meeting held at the Electrical Division Office, Tirurangadi on 7.11.09 on the matter of street light with 11 Panchayat authorities including the petitioner's representative, it was decided to conduct a joint inspection for identifying unauthorized street lights. But so far none of the 11 Panchayat officials who attended the meeting came forward for the joint inspection.

¶41

Under these circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that K.S.E.Board is willing and ready to do the repair of street lights provided necessary bulbs, tubes and spares are supplied by the petitioner as and when required by them.”

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits with

¶43

reference to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner that, the contentions made in the counter affidavit filed from the

¶44

W.P.(C).No.4332 of 2010

¶45

¶46

part of the Board are not correct and sustainable. It is also stated that there was a 'joint inspection' and the report has been countersigned by all concerned, which is evident from Ext.P15, which however, is rebutted from the part of the respondent Board, stating that the said proceeding pertains to the year 2007-08 and not with reference to the current year. The respondent Board submits that even though the Board had instructed the petitioner Grama Panchayath to have a 'joint inspection' to locate the unauthorised connections, it is still to be responded properly.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Panchayath is ready and willing to have a 'joint inspection', especially when, it is for the Panchayath to ensure necessary electric supply, as contemplated under Section 176(b) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. It is assured that, the petitioner Panchayath will provide necessary spares including the bulbs and tubes and after identifying the authorised street lights, the defects if any, might be caused to be rectified by the respondent Board, in

¶48

W.P.(C).No.4332 of 2010

¶49

¶50

view of the duty cast upon them by virtue of Sub-section 2 of Section 176(b) of the above 'Act'.

¶51

After hearing both sides, this Court directs the Board to have a 'joint inspection' with prior notice to the petitioner and to identify the authorised connections/street lights and to point out the defects if any, to be rectified. The petitioner shall supply adequate spares as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It will be for the petitioner Panchayath to supply necessary spares as and when demanded by the Board, pursuant to the 'joint inspection' as above and the remedial measures shall be taken by the authorities of the Board.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶54

Hyder K.Moonniyoor v. Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hyder K.Moonniyoor v. Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev.R. Vs Federal Bank

P.Sankaranarayanan Nair Vs District Collector and Others

Joy Daniel Vs Authorized Officer (Sarfaesi Act) & Ors.

K.Sivanandan Vs Authorised Officer, Federal Bank Regiona

M/S.Farms India Chicken Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shibu John Vs Dena Bank and Another