Dismissed

K.Chithrakumari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 May 2014WP(C)/5534/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought liberty to shift an electric line per Section 17(1) post-construction. The Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the disputed line was already drawn. Liberty to invoke Section 17(1) in future was reserved.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to invoke Section 17(1) for shifting the line in case of inconvenience; writ petition otherwise dismissed.

K.Chithrakumari Vs State of Kerala — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2014/31ST VAISAKHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 5534 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. K.CHITHRAKUMARI,

¶8

D/O.KAMALAMMA, AGED 46,

¶9

RESIDING AT NELLIVILLA PADIPURA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELLAR,

¶10

KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 527.

¶11

2. K.K.PRAMEELA,

¶12

D/O.KAMALAMMA, AGED 48,

¶13

RESIDING AT NELLIVILLA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELLAR,

¶14

KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 527.

¶15

3. K.K.AJITHAKUMARI,

¶16

D/O.KAMALAMMA, AGED 44,

¶17

RESIDING AT NELLIVILLA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELLAR,

¶18

KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 527.

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI, SMT.PREETHY .R. NAIR.

¶20

RESPONDENTS:

¶21

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶22

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶23

3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶24

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶25

Prv.

¶26

W.P.(C).NO.5534/2014- N:

¶27

V.S.NANDALAL, S/O.SEKARAN, AGED 41, RESIDING AT NELLIVILA PADIPURA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELLAR, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 527.

¶28

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶29

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ABDUL SHUKOOR, R4 & R6 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,S.C.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

Prv.

¶32

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶33

W.P.(c) No. 5534 OF 2014-N

¶34

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF MAY, 2014.

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the disputed electric line has already been drawn and therefore the issue involved has become infructuous. The petitioners seek liberty to invoke Section 17 (1) for shifting of the line, in case there is any inconvenience.

¶37

Reserving liberty of the petitioners as mentioned

¶38

above, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶39

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶40

AMG

¶41

True copy

¶42

P.A to Judge

K.Chithrakumari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chithrakumari v. State of Kerala

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

P.B.Dileepkumar Vs Radhakrishnan

K.Bhaskaran Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality

The Indian National Anganwady Employees Federation Vs Union of India

C. Mohanan Vs Sri. K.G. Mohanlal

M.A. Abdul Azeez Vs Mohandas

K.T.Abdul Latheef Vs the Executive Engineer and Others