Disposed

Haridasan. K v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC13 Dec 2018WP(C)/3732/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding a dispute over electric line installation. The court found that routine assessments by village officials satisfied the objection regarding road usage. It directed the board to provide power within two weeks following the approved route, ensuring no hindrance to vehicular traffic.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to draw the electrical line through the permitted route and a direction to provide power connection to the residence of the petitioner in WP(C) No.3732/2017 within two weeks.

Haridasan. K Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4713 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHANAN A

¶8

S/O LATE APPUKUTTAN, LAKSHMI KRIPA, NEIVILIKALAM, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASSANA, PALAKKAD DIST.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM- 695 004

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD- 678 504

¶13

3 HARIDAS.K. S/O KRISHNAN, OZHUVUPARA,PALLASSANA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

4 SREEDHARAN S/O VELANTHEYYAN, SAKUNTHALA NIVAS, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASSANA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD- 678 505 5 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PALAKKAD- 679 335 BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.BINU, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SRI.V.V.BINU SC KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).3732/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 4713 of 2017 & WP(C).No. 3732 of 2017

¶17

-2-

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶21

THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶22

WP(C).No. 3732 of 2017

¶23

PETITIONER:

¶24

HARIDASAN. K

¶25

AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, ODUVANKAD, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASSANA PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN678505 BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDKOLLENGODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678506

¶28

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD PIN-678001

¶29

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PALLASSANA PIN-678505,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.BINU, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED SRI.V.V.BINU SC KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

¶30

OTHER PRESENT:

¶31

SRI. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K.SR.GP.

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).4713/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

WP(C).No. 4713 of 2017 & WP(C).No. 3732 of 2017

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Petitioner in W.P.(C). No 3732/2017 has constructed a house in a small extent of landed property owned by him. According to the petitioner, the house is constructed utilizing the funds allotted under the “Indira Awas Yojana”. The petitioner submitted an application for electric connection, under the scheme of financial assistance granted by the Government for providing 100% electric connection in remote villages of the State. The request of the petitioner for drawing electric line for the purpose of providing his house with electrical connection was objected by his neighbour, Sri A. Mohanan who is the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 4713/2017.

¶36

In view of the dispute between the petitioner and his neighbour, the Electricity Board approached the 2^nd respondent, seeking permission for drawing the electric line, by exercising power under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. For the purpose of resolving the issue the 2^nd respondent obtained Ext.P2 report from the Village Officer, Pallassana. In the report, the Village Officer had pointed out that drawing of electric line through the proposed route would cause hindrance to the movement of vehicles through the road by the side of which the

¶37

WP(C).No. 4713 of 2017 & WP(C).No. 3732 of 2017

¶38

-4-

¶39

electric posts are to be installed. Therefore, it was suggested that, the problem can be resolved by installing the posts on the opposite side of the road as pointed out in the sketch appended along with the report of the village officer.

¶40

On the basis of the village officer's report, the electricity board submitted a statement before the 2^nd respondent stating that they are prepared to draw the line through the route suggested by the Village Officer. After considering the reports, as also the objection raised by the Sri. A. Mohanan, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P8 proceedings dated 08.02.2017, granting the permission to draw the line through the revised route specified in the plan filed along with the report dated 04.01.2017 submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB.

¶41

W.P(C) No. 4713/2017 has been filed by Sri. A. Mohanan, the

¶42

objector, challenging Ext.P8 order of the Additional District Magistrate. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties , learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board, I find that the primary objection against drawing of the electric line is based on the apprehension that, on erection of posts by the side of the CADA canal road, which is being used for vehicular traffic by Sri.Mohanan, it

¶43

WP(C).No. 4713 of 2017 & WP(C).No. 3732 of 2017

¶44

-5-

¶45

will not be possible for him to take his motor car or other vehicles through that stretch of the road.

¶46

I find that the apprehension of Sri.Mohanan, has been addressed and allayed by the reports of the village officer and officials of the Electricity Board. It is based on the reports that the Additional District Magistrate passed Ext.P8 order, keeping in mind the objection of Sri.Mohanan. Therefore, any further delay in the matter would only result in denial of the power connection to Sri.Haridasan, that too for untenable reasons.

¶47

In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petitions granting

¶48

liberty to the officials of the electricity board to draw electrical line through the route permitted under Ext.P8 order in W.P.(C).No.4713/2017, ensuring that normal vehicular traffic to the property of Sr.Mohanan is not adversely effected. Considering the fact that the writ petitions are pending for more than a year and that there was an interim order in W.P.(C) No.4713/2017, as a result of which the power connection is not being made available to the residence of the Sri. Haridasan, I deem it appropriate to direct the officials concerned of the Electricity Board to provide power connection to the residence of Sri.Haridasan, the petitioner in W.P.(C)

¶49

WP(C).No. 4713 of 2017 & WP(C).No. 3732 of 2017

¶50

-6-

¶51

No.3732/2017, strictly in accordance with the permission granted by the Additional District Magistrate. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

SD/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

SJ 13.12.2018

WP(C).No. 4713 of 2017 & WP(C).No. 3732 of 2017

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4713/2017

¶59

PETITIONER EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 12-08-2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DB.2016/71997/9 DATED 25-11-2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE SKETCH PLAN EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 21-12-2016 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 19-12-2016 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUGGESTING ANOTHER PROPOSAL BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D32016/71997/9 DATED 8-2-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN DRAWN BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.09.2016 EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.10.2016

¶61

WP(C).No. 4713 of 2017 & WP(C).No. 3732 of 2017

¶62

EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICR ALONG WITH THE SKETCH DATED 19/12/2016

¶63

EXHIBIT R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.2017

¶64

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3732/2017

¶65

PETITIONER EXHIBITS:

¶66

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD RELATING TO THE GRANT OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY PALLASSANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER'S WIFE

¶67

EXHIBIT P2:

¶68

TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.12.2016 ALONGWITH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLASSANA VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶69

EXHIBIT P3:

¶70

TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 04.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶71

EXHIBIT P4:

¶72

TRUE COPYOF THE REPORT DATED 18.01.2017, SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶73

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.06.2016

¶74

EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶75

EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 27.09.2016

¶76

WP(C).No. 4713 of 2017 & WP(C).No. 3732 of 2017

¶77

EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 15.10.2016

¶78

EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF PETITION AND SKETCH FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.10.2016 EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE SKETCH DATED 19.12.2016 EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF REPORT ALONG WITH A SKETCH SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH A REVISED SKETCH DATED 04.01.2017 EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.02.2017

¶79

SJ 13.12.2018

Haridasan. K v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridasan. K v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Haran Palaliath Vs Peringottukara Namboothiri

A.G.Raju Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

V. Ravindran Vs the Secretary

Saviour George Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Lekshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan a Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board