Disposed

The Deputy Chief Engineer v. Sebastian Jacob

Kerala HC13 Mar 2012WP(C)/2343/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court admitted a writ petition challenging an order directing electricity connection and compensation. The petitioner sought to quash the order citing jurisdictional flaws. The court reduced the compensation payable to Rs.15,000 and ordered completion of electricity connection within two months after permission from the Electrical Inspectorate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; compensation reduced to Rs.15,000; respondent directed to complete connection within two months after permission.

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs Sebastian Jacob — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/23RD PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 2343 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 584.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

1. SEBASTIAN JACOB CHERAYIL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM.P.O., IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 602.

¶11

2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI, PIN-685 603.

¶12

*ADDL R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IDUKKI. (ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DATED 05/03/2012.)

¶14

R1 BY ADV.SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 2343 of 2012 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1:-	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI AS C.C.NO.69 OF 2011 DATED 17.03.2011.
EXT.P2:-	COPY OF THE OBJECION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.04.2011.
EXT.P3:-	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, IDUKKI IN I.A.NO.148 OF 2011 IN O.S.NO.26 OF 2010 DATED 06.09.2011.
EXT.P4:-	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLECTOR, IDUKKI BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VAZHATHOPPE DATED 08.11.2010.
EXT.P5:-	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI IN C.C.NO.69 OF 2011 DATED 25.07.2011.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

B.P.RAY, J.

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

¶28

W.P.(C)No.2343 OF 2012

¶29

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

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

¶32

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶33

i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, directions or orders calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash the same;

¶34

ii) declare that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to order electric connection to the first respondent when the matter is pending before the District Collector, Idukki under a reference made by the Assistatn Executive Engineer concerned under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act.

¶35

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the line can be drawn in pursuance to the order passed by the Munsiff's Court and Ext.P5 order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

¶36

Since there is no deliberate or wilful default on the part of the KSEB, the compensation imposed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Ext.P5 order is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. The amount be paid in the meantime. The entire exercise be completed within two months after taking necessary permission from the Electrical Inspectorate.

¶37

Writ petition is closed.

¶38

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶39

jes

The Deputy Chief Engineer v. Sebastian Jacob

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Chief Engineer v. Sebastian Jacob

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

Gowri Movie House Vs K.S.E.B

Md, Ksrtc Vs K.Parameswara Pillai

Lali a.Alexander Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

M.S. Satheesan Vs K.G. Mohanlal

S.Padmaja Devi Vs State Bank of Travancore

Nadakalathil Yusuf Vs Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram