Disposed

Manoj.P.S v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC11 Nov 2016WP(C)/30628/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged alleged disconnection of electricity line to water pump installed on Second Respondent's property under sale deed terms. Court declined civil jurisdiction on merits, granting temporary stay on disconnection for two months to allow civil remedy.

What did the court decide?

Not to dismantle power connection for 2 months; allow petitioner to approach Civil Court.

Manoj.P.S Vs Assistant Executive Engineer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 30628 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MANOJ P.S., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE SANKAPPA, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PENGAMUK P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 544.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SECTION, PAZHANJI, KUNNAMKULAM CIRCLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2. SREENIVASAN, S/O.KURUPPAN, MUTHIRAMPARAMBIL, PENGAMUK P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 544.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSEB R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ

¶13

SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL SMT.PRIYADA R. MENON

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

WP(C).No. 30628 of 2016 (C)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1 TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18/1/2016

¶20

EXT.P2 SALE DEED NO.1652/1991

¶21

EXT.P3 LAST DRAWN BILL ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 6/8/2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶28

------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30628 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the

¶32

following reliefs:

¶33

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent not to disconnect the electricity line that is drawn through the property of the 2^nd respondent.

¶34

(b) Declare that the right to draw water from the property of the 2^nd respondent as found in Ext.P2 deed also extends to use of mechanical means for drawing the water by using water pump.”

¶35

Virtually, the issue is in regard to a civil dispute

¶36

between the petitioner and the second respondent. The second respondent purchased an item of property from the petitioner. In the sale deed, the petitioner was given the right to draw water from the well situated in the property of the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the water was being drawn by using a pump for which an electricity line was

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 30628 of 2016

¶38

-2-

¶39

provided. However, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is that at the instance of the second respondent, the Electricity Board is trying to dismantle the power connection. At this stage, this writ petition is filed.

¶40

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submits that an oral complaint was received from the second respondent stating that the power line had been drawn illegally to the pump, which is kept near the well. According to the learned counsel, there is some issue between the petitioner and the second respondent which cannot be resolved by the Board officials.

¶41

Having regard to the aforesaid factual issues involved in the matter, I do not think that this court will be justified in considering the claim raised by the petitioner with reference to the right to draw an electric line to the well in question. Such issue can be decided only by the Civil Court after considering the respective rights of the parties and the defence raised thereon.

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 30628 of 2016

¶43

-3-

¶44

In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of

¶45

as under:

¶46

(i) The first respondent shall not dismantle the power connection provided to the petitioner in respect of the well for a period of two months from today.

¶47

(ii) In the meantime, it shall be open for the petitioner

¶48

to approach the Civil Court and obtain appropriate orders.

¶49

(iii) The Board shall comply with the orders, if any,

¶50

passed by the Civil Court in this regard.

Sd/-

A.M. SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Scl/11.11.2016

Manoj.P.S v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj.P.S v. Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Vishnu Prabhakar V.S Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Aravindh S.Anand Vs the Medical Council of India

Sri.Kuriakose Sabu Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Hotel Roma Central Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.)

Navajeevan Trust Vs State of Kerala

V.M. Abdul Jabbar Vs the Additional Registering Authority