Disposed

Geetha Kumari v. the Additional District Magistrate,Tvm

Kerala HC6 Feb 2012WP(C)/22563/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to restrain respondents from drawing electric lines through her property and to quash an order refusing to consider her petition. The court directed the petitioner to make a representation for a cost-bearing rerouting and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a representation to Respondent No.3 for rerouting the line at petitioner's cost after hearing.

Geetha Kumari Vs the Additional District Magistrate,Tvm — Landlord and Tenant | 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 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/17TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 22563 of 2011 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-------------------------GEETHA KUMARI, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.RAJAMMA, RESIDING IN PAZHAMCHOTTUPARA VILAYIL VEEDU, ARUVIKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ

¶9

SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN SRI.AJESH. M.R.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶14

ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.

¶15

4. SATHI, PAZHANCHOTTUPARA VILAYIL VEEDU,

¶16

ARUVIKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 124.

¶17

5. INDIRA, PAZHANCHOTTUPARA VILAYIL VEEDU,

¶18

ARUVIKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 124.

¶19

6. SARASAMMA, PAZHANCHOTTUPARA VILAYIL

¶20

VEEDU, ARUVIKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 124.

¶21

7. MADHUKUMARI, GOLULAM, ASARI VILAKOM,

¶22

KERALDITHYAPURAM, PANDIKONAM P.O.,

¶23

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 168.

¶24

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN R3 BY ADV.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY ON 06-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Kss

¶27

WPC.NO.22563/2011 U

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶30

P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 9/05/2011, NO. S1-84902/10.

¶31

P2; COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 3/06/2011 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶32

P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/06/2011 RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 12/08/2011.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

B.P.RAY, J.

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

¶39

W.P.(C)No.22563 OF 2011

¶40

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

¶41

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2012

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶44

Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

¶45

(a) that a writ of mandamus or other order be passed directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to draw electric lines through the middle of the petitioner's property;

¶46

(b) that a writ of certiorari or other order be passed quashing Ext.P3 order.

¶47

(c) that a writ of mandamus or other order be passed directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P2 and to pass fresh orders in terms with Ext.P2.

¶48

By an interim order dated 20^th December, 2011 this court directed

¶49

the Board to ascertain whether the electricity line can be drawn to the residence of the beneficiary by drawing the electricity line from the post AK-16/8 along the boundary of the property belonging to the 5^th respondent. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is specifically stated that “ the new proposal will also entail fresh tree cutting. On the whole the new route though technically feasible it will cause additional financial burden to the Board .”

¶50

W.P.(C)No.22563 OF 2011

¶51

:: 2 ::

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to afford the expenses that may be incurred for the shifting of the line.

¶53

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the Assistant Executive Engineer/respondent No.3 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this judgment. If such a representation is made, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and draw the line as suggested by the petitioner at the cost of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶54

Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶55

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶56

jes

Geetha Kumari v. the Additional District Magistrate,Tvm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha Kumari v. the Additional District Magistrate,Tvm

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

S.Mohandas Vs Assistant Engineer,Kseb.

Ponnumani Vs Assistant Engineer, Kseb, Palakkad

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Settlement Commission(It&Wt)

Asha S.Rajan Vs Union of India

Chakradharan Vs State of Kerala

Hussain Vs K.S.E.B