Dismissed

S. Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2016WP(C)/3868/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Kerala State Electricity Board's failure to change the consumer name and address safety hazards of an electric line was closed by the court after recording the respondents' statement confirming redressal and satisfactory safety clearances.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed by recording the statement of the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

S. Mohanan Vs State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 3868 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. S. MOHANAN, AGED 52 YEARS,

¶8

S/O. SREEDHARAN, CHETHALAMPADU,

¶9

KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHENVEEDU, THANNIVILA,

¶10

VEDIVACHANKOVIL P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-605501.

¶11

2. AMBIKA, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. S.MOHAN, CHETHALAMPADU, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHENVEEDU,

¶12

THANNIVILA, VEDIVACHANKOVIL P.O.,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-605501.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.C.U.SANGEETH

¶15

RESPONDENT(S:

¶16

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - 695 001.

¶17

2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶19

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,

¶20

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

¶21

BALARAMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶22

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

mbr/

¶25

WP(C).No. 3868 of 2016 (G)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶28

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 10-05-2007 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PALLICHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19-12-2015 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-12-2015 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.3868 of 2016

¶39

- - - - Dated this the 18^th day of March 2016

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioners, had approached this Court with two grievances, namely that, the electric connection to the premises of the petitioner stood in the name of one Lakshmanan Nadar, and despite his preferring an application for changing the name of the consumer to his name, the respondents have not done anything in the matter. Secondly, it is his case that the electric line passing through his property is situated dangerously close to the residential house of the petitioner, and despite the petitioner having preferred an application to the respondent board for taking remedial steps in the matter, the respondents have not taken any action.

¶42

In a statement submitted by standing counsel for the respondent board, it is stated that the name of the consumer has been changed from that of Sri.Lakshmanan Nadar to the name of the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 16.01.2016, after receipt of the residential ownership certificate from the Panchayath, on 11.01.2016. It is apparent therefore that the first grievance of the petitioner stands redressed by the action of the respondents. As

¶43

W.P.(c).No.3868 of 2016

¶44

: 2 :

¶45

regards the 11 KV line, that is running through the property of the petitioner, the relevant extract of the statement submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondent board is as under.

¶46

“3) The 11 KV line mentioned by the petitioner is running through a small portion of the petitioner's property which is not at all in dangerous condition as stated by the petitioner. The existing double feeder and the house of the petitioner is having sufficient safety clearance as per the inspection conducted by the Assistant Engineer and Sub Engineer. The Assistant Executive Engineer also inspected the site and noticed that the horizontal clearance and vertical clearance from the building is satisfactory and no safe hazards as stated by the petitioner is in existence. The required safety horizontal clearance from building and 11 KV line is only 1.2 Mtr. On Inspection it was found that the said clearance is more than 2.5 Mtr.

¶47

On 19-12-15 the petitioner approached Assistant Engineer, Balaramapuram stating that there is Electric Spark and causing electric Shock through the nearby 11 KV line to him and his family. On inspection he found that beneath the 11 KV line there are a large number of tree lime Drumstick, Mango, Banana etc. When the leaves of trees touches the line there may be sparks and possibility of electric shock. The Assistant Engineer immediately arranged for removing the unwanted tree branches, drum stick etc which may likely touch the 11 KV line, as a safety precaution.

¶48

It is not at all feasible to shift the 11 KV line since it is drawn through different properties for about a length of 2.5 kilometer and no alternative route for shifting the line is not possible. It is not possible to shift a portion of around 15 meters of line alone. There is no chance of obtaining an electric shock from the existing 11 KV feeder as per the present situation. On receipt of the application on 19-12-2015 and on 22-12-2015, both the Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer visited the site and communicated the difficulty of shifting the line. So there is

¶49

W.P.(c).No.3868 of 2016

¶50

: 3 :

¶51

no inaction on the part of the Board in the matter.”

¶52

In the light of the said statement of the learned standing counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the apprehension of the petitioner with regard to the dangerous nature of the line in question is misplaced. The writ petition is therefore closed, by recording the statement of the learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶55

sm/

S. Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Mohanan 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

Anitha P.P. Vs State of Kerala

A.Q.Muslim Vs the Vijaya Bank

N.H.Sidhik Vs the Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India

Abdul Sathar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M/S. Neelammariyil Agencies Vs State Bank of Travancore

Suresh Chandran Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)