Dismissed

Nadiya Vahid v. the Executive Engineer Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC20 Feb 2019WP(C)/2336/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court challenged the Permanent Lok Adalat award rejecting the petitioners' claim for electric connection due to objections under the Telegraph Act. The Court dismissed the writ petition but directed the Electricity Board to connect the petitioner from an alternative post upon payment of expenses, while instructing the petitioner to follow up on the District Magistrate's proceedings regarding t

What did the court decide?

Directed KSEB to provide electric connection from Post No. VM 16/15 within one month if petitioner remits the stated amount; ordered petitioner to pursue Section 16 proceedings for the public road pos

Nadiya Vahid Vs the Executive Engineer Kerala State… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 NADIYA VAHID N.S.MANZIL,MANNAMVILA, MANICKAL VILLAGE, VEMMBAYAM, KUTHIRAKULAM.P.O,

¶8

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695615.

¶9

2 ABDUL VAHID

¶10

N.S.MANZIL, MANNAMVILA, MANICKAL VILLAGE, VEMMBAYAM,KUTHIRAKULAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695615.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD NEDUMANGAD ELECTRICAL DIVISION, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695605.

¶14

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VENAJARAMOODU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695607.

¶15

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KANYAKULANGARA, VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695615.

¶16

4 THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, VANCHIYOOR P. O, PIN-695035.

¶17

SRI. SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R., SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P13

¶23

award rendered by the Permanent Lok Adalat at Thiruvananthapuram. The award was passed pursuant to Ext.P10 complaint filed by the petitioners alleging in action on the part of respondents 1 to 3, in the matter of providing electric connection to the poultry farm set up by the 1^st petitioner after obtaining requisite licence or clearance from the statutory authorities. According to the petitioners, they had constructed the shed for running a poultry farm in their property in Manickal Village. After completing the construction and the necessary electric wiring work, they remitted the necessary fee for availing electric connection and was provided with a temporary power connection. It is alleged that in spite of remitting requisite fees, there was wilfull and deliberate refusal on the part of the officials of the KSEB in providing electric connection, which had compelled the petitioners to approach the Lok Adalat seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and for

¶24

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶25

¶26

a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to provide the electric connection forthwith.

¶27

The officials of the KSEB had filed a written statement in the Lok Adalat, wherein it was pointed out that there were a number of objections against drawal of electric lines to the property of the petitioners and that in view of the objections, the KSEB officials had approached the Additional District Magistrate seeking necessary orders in exercise of the power conferred on the District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. In the written statement, the names of the objectors had also been specifically stated. It was further stated that the objection was taken up for consideration by the Additional District Magistrate and notices issued to all concerned, including the 1^st petitioner. That, though the

¶28

petitioner appeared before the Additional District Magistrate on 04.01.2013, she had failed to appear on the subsequent dates, thereby compelling the Additional District Magistrate to close the proceedings. It was also submitted that even though the Electricity Board

¶29

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶30

¶31

was prepared to provide electric connection from an electric post (Post No. VM 16/15) at a distance, that required drawing of lengthy cable, the expense of which

¶32

had to be met by the consumer. That, though the petitioner was required to meet the necessary expenditure, she was not willing and therefore the Board was unable to provide connection from that electric post also.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no intimation regarding the expenditure for drawing of electric line was given to the petitioner and that even otherwise there are two posts adjacent to

¶34

the property of the petitioner, from which the electric

¶35

line could have been drawn, without objection from any quarter. Reliance is placed on the report and sketch filed by an Advocate Commissioner before the Permanent

¶36

Lok Adalat. It is reiterated that in spite of availability of sufficient number of electric posts from which the electric line could have been drawn, the officials of the KSEB, for reasons best known, refused to do so, thereby causing immense loss, both monetary

¶37

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶38

¶39

and otherwise, to the petitioners.

¶40

The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB

¶41

reiterated the contentions raised before the Lok Adalat

¶42

and submitted that it was only due to the non cooperation on the part of the petitioner that the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate could not be finalised. It was also submitted that due to the refusal on the part of the petitioner to meet the requisite expenditure, it was not possible for the Board to provide connection from an alternative electric post.

¶43

On a careful consideration of the contentions put forth, as also the findings in Ext.P13, I am unable to find any valid or sustainable reason for interfering with the award. The fact that there was objection against drawing of electric line, for the purpose of providing electric connection to the petitioners poultry farm, is not in dispute. Even though the names of the objectors was specifically mentioned and taken note of in the Lok Adalat, as reflected from Ext P13

¶44

Award, the objectors are not made parties to this

¶45

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶46

¶47

writ petition. The fact that the Additional District

¶48

Magistrate had, pursuant to the request made by the Electricity Board, initiated proceedings under Section

¶49

16 of the Telegraph Act is also not disputed. The

¶50

petitioner has got a specific case that, as far as post No.VM/16/13/3/3 is concerned, there could not have been

¶51

any objection for the reason that it was situated on the public road. That, merely for the reason that a person name Smt. Saralamma had met the expense for erecting that post, she could not have raised any objection. This, definitely, is a matter which is to be looked into by the Additional District Magistrate. I make this observation for the reason that, even if an

¶52

electric post is put up on the public road at the expense of a private individual, upon erection of that post, it becomes the property of the Electricity Board,

¶53

and the person who had met the expense cannot at a later stage raise an objection against providing of

¶54

electric connection from that post. My view is

¶55

fortified by the decision rendered by this court in

¶56

K.P. Bhargavan Pillai v. Kerala State Electricity Board

¶57

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶58

¶59

& Ors. 2014(1)KLJ 456).

¶60

6 . For the reasons mentioned above, the writ

¶61

petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to

¶62

make a request before the Additional District Magistrate concerned, to take up and continue the proceedings initiated under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, based on the request made by respondents 1 to 3 and pertaining to the objection against the drawing of electric line to the petitioners property. If such request is made, the Additional District Magistrate concerned will consider the request and take an appropriate decision, after issuing notice to all parties. In the event of the Additional District Magistrate deciding to reconsider the issue, the question as to whether power connection could be provided from post No. VM/16/13/3/3 will also be considered. Respondents 1 to 3 will issue an intimation to the petitioner with regard to the amount to be remitted for meeting the expenses for drawing

¶63

electric line from post No. VM/16/15. If, after

¶64

receipt of such intimation, the petitioner remits the

¶65

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶66

requisite amount, within a period of one month there after, respondents 1 to 3 shall provide electric connection to the petitioners building from post No. VM16/15.

¶67

rendered after considering all relevant inputs.

¶68

aforementioned directions.

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

SPR

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶73

¶74

APPENDIX

¶75

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶76

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ELECTRIC
	CONNECTION FIELD BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KSEB,CONSUMER NO.12617
EXT.P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE FIRST PETITIONER
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT COMPRISED
	IN SY NO.182/8-4,OWNED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER
EXT.P4	PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23-05- 2012 ISSUED BY THE VETERINARY SURGEON,VETERINARY HOSPITAL,MANICKAL
EXT.P5	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ROUTE SKETCH FOR GIVING
	S/C TO CON.NO.12617 IN FAVOUR OF NADIYA VAHID
EXT.P6(a)	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ESTIMATE OF FIRST PROPOSAL BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KANNIYAKULANGARA.
EXT.P6(b)	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ESTIMATE OF SECOND PROPOSAL BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KANNIYAKULANGARA.
EXT.P7	PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE OF
	THE BUILDING NO.IX/342/B IN FAVOUR OF NADUYA VAHID.
EXT.P8	PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BEARING NO.PCB/TVM-
	DO/ICO/A1/223/2011 IN FAVOUR OF NADIYA VAHID
EXT.P9	SANITARY CERTIFICATE NO.15/2011 DATED 18.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR,MANICKAL PANCHAYATH,
EXT.P10	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 27.05.2014 BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXT.P10(A)	PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH THE

¶77

WP(C).No. 2336 of 2018

¶78

¶79

	EXT.P10 B PERMANENT	Y LOK	THE ADA	PETITIONE LAT.	RS BEF	ORE THE
EXT.P11	PHOTOCOPY SUBMITTED THE PERMAN	O BY ENT	F THE LOK	THE COM ADVOCATE ADALAT.	MISSION RAMAYAR	REPORT BEFORE
EXT.P12	PHOTOCOPY NO.A4.133/ PETITIONER	12 NA	OF DATE DIYA	THE LI D 26.06.2	CENSE 012 TO	BEARING THE 1ST
EXT.P13	PHOTOCOPY	OF	THE	AWARD IN	O.P.347	OF 2014
	DATED 27. ADALAT, TH	07. IRU	2017 VANA	OF THE NTHAPURAM.	PERMAN	ENT LOK

¶80

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Nadiya Vahid v. the Executive Engineer Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadiya Vahid v. the Executive Engineer Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Rashid.P Vs Regional Transport Authority

Mohanan.a Vs Suresh

Pathumma Vs District Collector

Gopa Kumara Panicker P. Vs General Manager, State Bank of India

The Manager, Mitup School Vs the State of Kerala

Smt. R.Kalyanikuttyamma Vs State of Kerala