Dismissed

Ismail Putteyakat v. Kerala State Electricity Board & 6 Ors.

Kerala HC6 Jun 2016WP(C)/10369/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notice requiring fee for rerouting an electric line due to objections by cemetery committees. Court held District Magistrate has jurisdiction under Works of Licensees Rules to resolve consent disputes.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent to refer matter to District Magistrate with notice to parties; status quo maintained till final orders.

Ismail Putteyakat Vs Kerala State Electricity Board… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10369 of 2011 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

ISMAIL PUTTEYAKAT, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, PUTTEYAKAT HOUSE, KALATHILPARA, MOONNIYUR SOUTH P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SMT.A.S.BEENU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, PARAPPANANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 303.

¶12

3. MASJUDUL JALALIYA MAHAL COMMITTEE, KALATHINGALPARA, P.O.MOONNIYUR SOUTH, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 311, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

4. SIDHIQUE JUMA MASJID PROTECTION COMMITTEE, KUNDAN KADAVU- P.O.MOONNIYUR SOUTH, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 311, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

5. MASJID FAROOQ PARIPALANA COMMITTEE KUNNATHUPARAMBU-P.O.MOONNIYUR SOUTH, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 311, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

6. RASHIDUL ANAM SANGHAM, KALATHINGALPARA, P.O.MOONNIYUR SOUTH, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 311, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶16

..2/-

¶17

..2..

¶18

WP(C).No. 10369 of 2011 (U)

¶19

-------------------------------------------

¶20

7. C.M.ALI, CHONARI HOUSE, NEDUMPARAMBU, P.O.MOONIYUR SOUTH, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 311.

¶21

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, S.C R4 TO R7 BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAMADAS

¶22

SRI.C.S.ARUN SHANKAR SRI.T.G.MADHAVANUNNI

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Msd.

¶25

WP(C).No. 10369 of 2011 (U)

¶26

-------------------------------------------

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶29

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 02.05.2009.

¶30

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED IN TOKEN OF THE REMITTANCE DATED 01.07.2009.

¶31

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT OF CAUTION DEPOSIT DATED 10.09.2009.

¶32

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROUTE THROUGH WHICH 110 KV LINE IS DRAWN.

¶33

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF BIMONTHLY BILL DATED 22.03.2011.

¶34

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.03.2011.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.V.ASHA J.

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.10369 of 2011

¶42

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2016

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 notice by which he is directed to remit the requisite fee for drawing line to the pump house saying that the connection which was already given to him has been objected by the Masjudul Jalaliya Mahal Committee as well as the members of other Committees and residents of the locality as against the electric line drawn over their property. It is stated that the consent already submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary on 16.06.2009 was stated to be unauthorized. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was directed to remit the charges for drawing another line to his pump house within a period of 10 days.

¶45

According to the petitioner, he had submitted an application for electric connection to his property for the purpose of carrying out agricultural activities, as per Ext.P1 as early as on 16.06.2009 and had produced the

¶46

W.P.(C) No.10369 of 2011

¶47

¶48

consent from the Secretary of the Masjudul Jalaliya Mahal Committee, who according to the petitioner is authorized to give consent for drawing the electric line over their property. The connection of supply was granted in January, 2011 and thereafter Ext.P6 notice was issued. According to the petitioner, he was not informed about the objection raised by anybody as against the consent or about the decision to draw another line for which he was directed to remit the charges.

¶49

The learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submits that Ext.P6 notice was issued on the basis of a direction received from the District Collector to take appropriate action in respect of the line drawn. It is stated that the Sidhique Juma Masjid Protection Committee, Kundan Kadavu and several persons in the locality residing near the property of the petitioner, had submitted Ann.A1 representation before the District Collector on 25.01.2011 objecting to the consent granted by the Secretary, Masjudul Jalaliya Mahal Committee saying that the Secretary was not authorized to grant such a consent. The

¶50

W.P.(C) No.10369 of 2011

¶51

¶52

objection was raised against drawing line above the graveyard. The Senior Superintendent of the Kerala State Wakf Board Regional Office, Kozhikode also addressed to the Executive Engineer in Ann.II letter stating that the Masjudul Jalaliya Mahal Committee was formed by four Institutions registered with the Wakf Board. The graveyard above which the electric line is drawn belongs to all the four Institutions. The Executive Engineer was requested to remove the post and electric line which was drawn over the property without getting the consent of the four Committees. The Executive Engineer thereupon forwarded the complaints to the Assistant Engineer and directed to take necessary action. Ext.P6 order was issued on receipt of the said letter.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the K.S.E.B and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7.

¶54

It is seen that the electric line was already drawn over the graveyard to the pump house of the petitioner, based on the consent given by the Secretary. Now

¶55

W.P.(C) No.10369 of 2011

¶56

¶57

respondents 3 to 7 object complaining that the Secretary has no authority to grant consent. It is pertinent to note that the electricity line is drawn only over a graveyard. However in the light of the objections raised, the disputes have to be resolved with notice to parties.

¶58

This Court has recently in the judgment in Gopinathan Nair v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2015(2) KLT 947] held that the District Magistrate is having jurisdiction to deal with requests relating to drawing of electric line even over the property of a 3^rd party under Rule 3 of Works of Licensees Rules 2006, which reads as follows:

¶59

“3. Licensees to carry out works :-(1) A licensee may-

¶60

(a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensees, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land;

¶61

(b) fix any support of overhead line or any stay or

¶62

W.P.(C) No.10369 of 2011

¶63

¶64

strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support.

¶65

Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works.

¶66

Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorized may by order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.”

¶67

Thus under 2^nd proviso to Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules the District Magistrate is competent to deal with the dispute raised in this case also.

¶68

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of

¶69

¶70

W.P.(C) No.10369 of 2011

¶71

directing the second respondent to refer the matter to the District Magistrate for appropriate action with notice to all the parties. Till final orders are passed thereon the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the electric supply connection granted to the petitioner to his pump house and with respect to electric line drawn to it. Orders shall be passed within a period of 'four months' from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶72

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶73

AS/03/06/16

Ismail Putteyakat v. Kerala State Electricity Board & 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail Putteyakat v. Kerala State Electricity Board & 6 Ors.

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

Divya Vijayan Vs Mathew Joy

Korula Joseph and Others Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Radhakrishnan Nair M.P. Vs Director General, Bsf

K.Gopinathan Vs Pension Board

Fr.Jolly Thappalodath Vs the Mookkannur Grama Panchayath

E.a.Sugatha Kumar Vs the State of Kerala