Quashed

Sukumaran Nadar v. the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC25 Jun 2015WP(C)/18379/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order refusing a request to draw an electricity service line to the first floor of a petitioner's building. The High Court felt the administrative order overlooked specific contentions, specifically regarding pending shifting petitions and multiple connections, and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The challenged order was quashed. The Second Respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in light of pending objections and petitions and pass a new order within six weeks.

Sukumaran Nadar Vs the District Collector… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/4TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 18379 of 2015 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUKUMARAN NADAR, S/O.RAMAN AGED 70 YEARS "RADHALAYAM", PAZHAVILA, DAYA NAGAR KUDAPPANAKKUNNU PO.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.

¶9

SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 015.

¶12

2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 015.

¶13

3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.

¶15

5. PRASHOBHA DEVI DEVIKRISHNA, DREAM VILLAS, KUDAPPANAKKUNU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

¶16

6. RAJAN, PAZHAVILA PURAYIDOM KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695005.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB R3 & R4 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN R6 BY ADVS. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA SRI.PATHIRIPALLY S.KRISHNAKUMARI

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 18379 of 2015 (V)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1 - A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.S1-28355/99 DATED 3.5.2000 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P2 - A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSEB/ESD-VLBM/CASE ADM/2014-15/217 DATED 23.05.2014 OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P3 - A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23.05.2014 IN TERMS OF SECTION 67(2)(B) OF THE INDIA ELECTRICITY ACT OFTHE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶25

P4 - A SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED ROUTE FOR ELECTRIC CONNECTION TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING PREPARED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT AND THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU.

¶26

P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 15.5.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.

¶27

P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19.05.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.

¶28

P7 - A SKETCH PREPARED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT SHOWING THE ALTERNATE ROUTE SUGGESTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.

¶29

P8 - A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OFTHE OBJECTION DATED 25.03.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU RESPONDENT.

¶30

P9 - A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13.08.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶31

P10 - A TRUE PHOTCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.03.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶32

P11 - A TRUE PHOTCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.08.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶33

P12 - A TRUE PHOTCOPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER S1-42166/2014/DDIS DATED 10.11.2014

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶39

W.P.(C). NO. 18379 OF 2015

¶40

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2015

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

There already exists a service line from the post erected in the property of the fifth respondent to the ground floor of the building of the petitioner. The petitioner wants another service line to be drawn along the same route to the first floor of the same building. The motion made by the fourth respondent in this regard has been turned down by the second respondent by Ext. P12 order which is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner relies on the following observation in

¶43

Bharghavan Pillai K.P. v. KSEB, Tvm and Others

¶44

[2014(1) KLT 48] .

¶45

“It is not disputed that there existed a service wire drawn from the very same post standing in the corner of the property of the 5^th respondent, since the year 1995 onwards. If that be so, drawing of one more service wire to the same building for providing connection to the 1^st floor portion cannot be objected as causing any prejudice or inconvenience to the 5^th respondent.”

¶46

W.P.(C). NO. 18379 OF 2015 2

¶47

The fifth respondent opposes the reliefs sought in the writ petition raising the following contentions:-

¶48

i) It was inequitable on the part of the second respondent to have passed Ext. P12 order when Ext. P6 petition for shifting of the existing service line is pending.

¶49

ii) Providing multiple connections to the different floors of the same residential building owned by the same person without separate door numbers is prohibited.

¶50

I do feel that all the aspects of matter have not been considered by the second respondent and therefore Ext. P12 order passed by him is quashed. The second respondent shall advert to the contentions reflected above and pass orders anew with notice to the parties. The needful shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The third respondent has ofcourse to provide electricity connection to the first floor of the building owned by the petitioner as per law.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶53

DCS

Sukumaran Nadar v. the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran Nadar v. the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobhana Ajaykumar Vs Jayakhosh

Shereef Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

A.P.Anilkumar Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Jose Joseph Rep.by P.C.Joseph Vs State of Kerala and Others

A.T. Thomas Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

M/S.Esmario Export Enterprises Pvt.Ltd Vs Asst.Engineer