Dismissed

Udalakkavu Devaswom, Adat v. the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kseb

Kerala HC3 Jun 2015WP(C)/3373/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging an order partially directing the respondent to route one stay wire through the petitioner's property. The court found the impugned order legal as the chosen route was economically viable and technically feasible.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with order under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 upholding the route decision.

Udalakkavu Devaswom, Adat Vs the Assistant Executive… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/13TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 3373 of 2014 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

UDALAKKAVU DEVASWOM, ADAT VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUTHUVARA PUZHAKKAL P.O, THRISSUR 680 553.

¶11

2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 003.

¶12

3. DEVASSY S/O.ANTHONY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, UDALAKKAVU ADAT P.O, THRISSUR 680 554.

¶13

4. JOSHY

¶14

S/O.OUSEPH, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, UDALAKKAVU ADAT P.O, THRISSUR 680 554.

¶15

5. MANI S/O.OUSEPH, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, UDALAKKAVU ADAT P.O, THRISSUR 680 554.

¶16

6. JOSE

¶17

S/O.PAILY, AKKARAPARAMBAN HOUSE, UDALAKKAVU ADAT P.O, THRISSUR 680 554.

¶18

7. SMT. BABY

¶19

D/O.THOMAKUTTY, AKKARAPARAMBAN HOUSE ADAT, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 554.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSEB R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

DCS

¶23

WP(C).No. 3373 of 2014 (V)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.13.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE SKETCH AND DRAW SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE ESTIMATE SHOWING THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR BOTH PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.14.

¶30

EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶36

W.P.(C). NO. 3373 OF 2014

¶37

Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2015

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Ext.P5 order passed in terms of Section 16 of the

¶40

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is impugned. The second respondent has accepted route No. 2 suggested by the Electricity Board. This is because the electricity supply line will be drawn along a pathway as per route No. 2. One stay wire will be fixed on the pathway itself and the other in the property close to the boundary wall of the petitioner.

¶41

Route No.1 suggested by the petitioner necessitates the drawing of electricity supply line along a private property. The drawing of electricity supply line along a pathway has to be preferred to a private property. The second respondent has considered the relevant inputs and found that route No. 2 is economically viable and technically feasible. I do not find any illegality in the decision making process of the second respondent in this regard.

¶42

W.P.(C). NO. 3373 OF 2014 2

¶43

The challenge to Ext. P5 order fails. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶44

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶45

DCS

Udalakkavu Devaswom, Adat v. the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udalakkavu Devaswom, Adat v. the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kseb

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

Cherukunnam Veeran Haji Vs the Deputy Chief Engineer

Deepa Deepu Thankan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.

Meethale Pakkan Cheriya Sulaiman Vs the District Collector Kannur

Thankamma Chellappan Vs Yesudas

Ajoy Joseph Paul Vs State of Kerala

Lijo Joseph Vs the Assistant Engineer