Disposed

M.Sasidharan v. Additional District Magistrate

Kerala HC26 May 2014WP(C)/30590/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the petitioner's writ petition by directing him to approach the 3rd respondent seeking shifting of the electric line under Section 17(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The Court noted the respondents' willingness to shift the line subject to conditions and cost bearing by the petitioner, prescribing a timeline for the decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; petitioner directed to approach 3rd respondent for shifting of electric line under Section 17(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act.

M.Sasidharan Vs Additional District Magistrate — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2014/5TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 30590 of 2011 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M.SASIDHARAN, `SREESA', T.C.2/3357(1)

¶8

SREE CITHIRA THIRUNAL NAGAR, CHALAKUZHY, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VAIDYUDHA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶13

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD) KSEB, SUB DIVISION OFFICE, KILIMANOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

VASUMATHU AMMA, W/O.RAJAPPAN PILLAI, VINOD BHAVAN, PEDIKULAM, PULIMATH.P.O. PIN-695 001.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ABDUL SHUKOOR R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB R4 BY ADVS. SRI.M.DINESH

¶16

SMT.SAI LAKSHMI R BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 30590 of 2011 (W)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2536/1992 OF KILIMANOOR SUB REGISTRY.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF ROUGH PLAN OF HIS PROPERTY PREPARED BY PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4:TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.VIG/AIII/8428/06/80 DT.8/1/2007.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER FOR REMOVING AND RELOCATING THE ELECTRIC LINE DRAWN OVER HIS PROPERTY.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER D.DIS 66750/07/S1 DT.29/1/2009.

¶28

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶30

EXHIBIT R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 30590 of 2011

¶36

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2014

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner had purchased 30 Acres and 35 Sq. Meters of property situated in Survey No.152/4 of the Pulimath Village by virtue of Ext.P1 Sale Deed, in the year 1992. In the year 2000 the petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent seeking steps to relocate an electric line situated in the property, based on an allegation that the line was drawn without consent of the petitioner, at the time when electric connection was provided to the 4^th respondent, in the year 1997. Since the 3^rd respondent has not taken any action on the request the petitioner, he approached the Chief Vigilance Officer, KSEB. Ext.P5 letter was issued directing the petitioner to submit appropriate application before the Assistant Engineer concerned, seeking shifting of the electric line and the post situated in the property. Thereafter the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 request before the KSE Board as well as before the District Collector. The said application was

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 30590 of 2011

¶40

-2-

¶41

dealt with by the 1^st respondent as if it is a complaint under Section 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The 3^rd respondent submitted that the line in question was drawn as early as in the year 1977, whereas the petitioner had purchased the property only in the year 1992. Therefore it is submitted that the petitioner has to seek shifting of the line through appropriate application and he has to bear the cost if such shifting if possible, as per the existing Rules. Accepting the contentions the 1^st respondent disposed of the application through Ext.P7 order rejecting the claim for shifting. It is challenging Ext.P7, this writ petition is filed.

¶42

It is pertinent to note that, for shifting of an electric line the petitioner has to approach the concerned authority under Section 17(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with relevant provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003. If any such application is submitted it is for the competent authority, the 3^rd respondent herein, to deal with such application. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 it is mentioned as follows;

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 30590 of 2011

¶44

-3-

¶45

“5. It is respectfully submitted that a 3 phase line passing through the property. The line can be shifted to the side of the plot subject to the following condition:

¶46

1. The petitioner should bear the estimate of cost of shifting the line.

¶47

1. While shifting the line, supports of poles (such as Stays, strut post etc) should be within the petitioner's property itself. It cannot place in neighbour's property.

¶48

1. Trees, trees branches in the side of the petitioner's plot (to which the line to be shifted) is to be cut and removed while the said shifting.

¶49

It is submitted that if the petitioner is fully

¶50

willing to obey the conditions stated supra, there will not be any hindrance to give sanction of the said shifting and executing the shifting.”

¶51

In view of submission made as above, interest

¶52

of justice will be achieved by relegating the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent for invoking Section 17(1), seeking appropriate remedy.

¶53

If any application is submitted seeking shifting of the line and the electric post in question to any portion of the property of the petitioner, in a manner causing least inconvenience and hardships to him, the 3^rd respondent

¶54

W.P.(C). No. 30590 of 2011

¶55

-4-

¶56

shall consider such application, if found necessary after issuing notice to any other persons effected. A decision on the application for shifting shall be taken after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such application.

¶57

Needless to observe that the petitioner will be free to invoke remedy under Section 17(2) if he is in any manner aggrieved by any such decision.

¶58

The writ petition is disposed of on the basis of the above directions.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶61

M.Sasidharan v. Additional District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sasidharan v. Additional District Magistrate

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

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

Joy Ouseph Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer

Rajan Sheriff I Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

V.P.Prasadu Vs the Kerala Agriculral University

Rajamony.G. Vs K.P.S.C

K.S. Rajesh Vs the Kerala State Road Transport