Disposed

Kodiyath Kizhakke Veettil Rajeswari v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC14 Feb 2012WP(C)/721/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandatory directions to shift electric lines. The court held that the petitioner must file an application, pay fees, and obtain consent from the adjacent property owner. If these conditions are met, orders shall be passed within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the request and pass orders within 3 months if petitioner files application, pays fees/deposit, and secures neighbor's consent.

Kodiyath Kizhakke Veettil Rajeswari Vs Kerala State… — 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

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 721 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KODIYATH KIZHAKKE VEETTIL RAJESWARI D/O. BHARGAVI AMMA, VADAVANTHUR, MATHIL, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.M.ANTO SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS SMT.CELINE JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAJOR SECTION, PAYYANNUR 670 001.

¶12

ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KANNUR 670 001.

¶13

DR. B. KOSHUKRISHNAN, S/O. A. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, PAYYANNUR - 670 633.

¶14

R1-R3 BY SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC.No. 721 of 2012 (M)

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE LOCATION. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTIONS GIVEN FROM THE GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL, PARIYARAM AND PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL.

¶21

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 10.10.2011.

¶22

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 28.11.2011.

¶23

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.12.2011 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 721 of 2012

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2012.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

¶34

issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records related with the request for shifting electric line through the property of the petitioner and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to shift the electric line from the property of the petitioner to anywhere else and to make available the property free for the construction of residential building.

¶35

to pass appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent 1 and 2 to continue the electric connection to the consumer by shifting the electric line from the property of the petitioner and drawing the same through the property of the 4^th respondent adjacent to Kandangali- South bazar main road.

¶36

to direct the 3^rd respondent to interfere in the cost of shifting if found exorbitant and unreasonable and to fix the cost independently.

¶37

In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2,

¶38

it is stated that the petitioner has to file an application in the proper form and remit the required fee and work deposit amount for shifting the line, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶39

“The present line passing through the petitioner's property can be shifted near the boundary of the petitioner's property by inserting an electric pole in the existing 3 phase line passing along the Siva temple road and shifting the existing electric pole in the property of the consumer, Smt. Subhasree. For this, the petitioner has to file an application and to remit the required fee and work deposit amount for shifting the line. Also the petitioner has to produce consent for shifting the line from Smt.

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 721/2012

¶41

: 2:

¶42

Subhasree, Kodiyath Kizhakke Veettil and Sri. Muraleedharan.”

¶43

In that view of the matter, I direct that if the petitioner files an application along with the required fee, work deposit amount and consent of the nearby property owner, the same shall be considered and final orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

W.P.(C) No. 721/2012

: 3:

B.P. RAY, J.

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶51

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

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

W.P.(C) No. 721/2012 : 4:

Kodiyath Kizhakke Veettil Rajeswari v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kodiyath Kizhakke Veettil Rajeswari v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

N.Gopinathan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

P.Hemalatha Vs Asst. Educational Officer

Sajikumar.K Vs the District Collector,Pathanamthitta

Babu C. George Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.Surendran Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

P.Viswanathan Assary Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation