Disposed

Muraleedharan E.K v. Assistant Engineer, Kseb, Kollam

Kerala HC16 Jan 2012WP(C)/21561/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an ADM's order permitting the drawing of an overhead line through his property. He sought a direction for the authorities to reconsider the matter in light of a separate petition he filed proposing an alternate route. The court disposed of the prayers without substantive adjudication on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Additional District Magistrate's order and direction to respondents to reconsider the matter and decide within three months.

Muraleedharan E.K Vs Assistant Engineer, Kseb… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/26TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 21561 of 2011 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MURALEEDHARAN E.K, ELECTRICAL ENGINEER,ST. GEORGE HOTEL,DUBAI UAE THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M. PANKAJAKSHAN,MANOJ BHAVAN,VALIAPARAMBU P.O. KAR, THIKAPPALLI-690 566.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶9

SRI.K.N.AJAYAN SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD OCHIRA-690 526, KOLLAM.

¶12

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶13

ELECTRICAL SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD OCHIRA-690 526, KOLLAM.

¶14

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

¶15

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM- 691 001.

¶16

SMT. GOMATHY,MEZHUVELITHARA,

¶17

VARAVILA P.O. 690 528,KOLLAM.

¶18

ABDUL SATHAR,MANCHADIYIL HOUSE, VARAVILA P.O., VAVVAKAVU,KOLLAM PIN 690 528.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB R5 BY SRI.C.RAJENDRAN R5 BY SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) NO. 21561/2011

¶22

: 2 :

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT WITH EMIGRATION CLEARANCE.

¶26

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF TREES CUT DOWN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND HIS MEN.

¶27

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 21.11.2007 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAY OUT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND THE SKETCH OF THE LINE DRAWN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

¶29

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.06.2011 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER RTI ACT.

¶30

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OBTAINED FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT.

¶31

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2010.

¶32

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH TO DRAW THE LINE THROUGH PETITIONER'S PROPERTY WITH ESTIMATE OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.05.2011 OF THE ADM.

¶34

EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.07.2011 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶35

EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.07.2011 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXT.R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2011.

¶38

EXT.R1(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.05.2011. EXT.R1(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 21561 of 2011

¶44

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

¶45

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2012.

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶48

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶49

following prayers:

¶50

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P11 petition in accordance with law.

¶51

Call for the records leading to issue Ext.P9 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶52

Issue a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to dismantle the line drawn through the petitioner's property as seen in ABC line in Ext.P4 sketch.

¶53

Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the valuable trees cut and removed by the first respondent.

¶54

The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam permitting respondents 1 and 2 to draw the over head line of 65 meters through his property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P9 order was passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act before the 3^rd respondent to shift the line from his property proposing to an

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 21561/2011 : 2:

¶56

alternate route. Let the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam take a decision in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment without being influenced by the earlier order passed by him and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned

¶57

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶58

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶59

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 21561/2011

¶61

: 3:

¶62

B.P. RAY, J.

¶63

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶64

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2012.

¶65

JUDGMENT

Muraleedharan E.K v. Assistant Engineer, Kseb, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan E.K v. Assistant Engineer, Kseb, Kollam

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

Soman.v.T. Vs the District Collector

V.Ramachandran Asari and 13 Others Vs Kerala State Road Trasport Corporation and Another

V.N.Kumarji Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Premium Forro Alloys Ltd. Vs Kseb

Veeran Master Haji.T Vs Addl. District Magistrate and Others

P.H.Abdul Shukkoor and Another Vs Additional District Magistrate and Ors.