Disposed

Joy Ouseph v. the Asst. Executive Engineer

Kerala HC23 May 2014WP(C)/11060/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged inaction on the relocation of electric posts obstructing a residence. The respondents clarified that the posts would be shifted during proposed road widening and provided liberty to seek action bearing expenses if delayed. The petition was dismissed with liberty.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the respondents for action if the road widening proposal is delayed, subject to bearing expenses.

Joy Ouseph Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2014/2ND JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 11060 of 2014 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOY OUSEPH S/O ENASU, OZHUKKULLIKKARAN HOUSE KAINOOR POST-680014.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, DIVISION OFFICE OLLUR-680306.

¶11

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VYDUTHI BHAVAN, EAST DIVISION, KOTTAPPURAM THRISSUR-680664.

¶12

3. THE ASST. ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VETTUKADU VETTUKKADU POST, THRISSUR-680014.

¶13

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 11060 of 2014 (F)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTIES, THE HIGHWAY IN QUESTION THE TRANSFORMER AND THE NEWLY ERECTED POSTS. EXHIBIT P2: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE INSTALLATION OF THE TWO NEW ELECTRIC POSTS IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMPOUND. EXHIBIT P2(A): PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE INSTALLATION OF THE TWO NEW ELECTRIC POSTS IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMPOUND. EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.4.2014 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

ANNEXURE R1(A) COPY OF THE PETITION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.2014

¶21

ANNEXURE R1(B) COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION.

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶26

W.P.(C). No. 11060 of 2014

¶27

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2014

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is filed alleging inaction on the part of the 1^st respondent in not considering Ext.P3 request for shifting of the two electric posts (double posts) situated on the side of a public road, abutting to the petitioner's residence.

¶30

In a statement filed on behalf of the respondents it is mentioned that, the newly erected posts will obstruct passage of vehicles when entrance to the property of the petitioner is shifted to the eastern side. It is disputed that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 request to the respondents, at any point before filing of this writ petition. However, it is conceded that Ext.P3 was received on 24.04.2014. It is mentioned that the respondents 1 & 3 had conducted a site inspection on the basis of Ext.P3 and it was realised that, shifting of the Transformer as well as the disputed posts will be required in view of the road widening proposed by the authorities

¶31

W.P.(C). No. 11060 of 2014

¶32

-2-

¶33

of the PWD. Therefore it is confirmed that, while carrying out the road widening works, the posts in question will be shifted to a convenient place in a manner not obstructing passage to the petitioner's residence.

¶34

The offer made as above, contained in the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, is recorded. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents seeking necessary action on the basis of the above said undertaking.

¶35

In case the proposal for the road widening is delayed, the petitioner can approach the respondents seeking shifting of the post, provided he is willing to bear the expenses required.

¶36

Hence the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue further action before the respondents.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶39

/true copy/

¶40

P. A. to Judge

¶41

Joy Ouseph v. the Asst. Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Ouseph v. the Asst. Executive Engineer

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

Shiju Vs Dr K P Sreekumar

Justin K.J Vs Smijesh V.M

Daisy Cherian Vs District Collector

G.Gopalaikrishna Pillai Vs K.S.R.T.C.

Rajan Sheriff I Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

The Kerala State Electricity Board Vs the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum