Allowed

Saraswathy Amma v. the Executive Engineer

Kerala HC6 Feb 2020WP(C)/1529/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed that the representation filed by the petitioner be treated as obstruction/ resistance. It ordered the respondent authorities to refer the matter regarding the shifting of electric lines to the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act within six weeks and maintained the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to refer the matter to the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act within six weeks and maintaining the status quo.

Saraswathy Amma Vs the Executive Engineer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947

¶5

WP(C).No.1529 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SARASWATHY AMMA, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. SUKUMARAN PILLAI, 'SAJI BHAVANAM', PEROORKARAZHMA MURI, THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶11

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTATNT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, CHARUMMOODU, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHARUMMOODU,

¶14

MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA. - 688 001.

¶15

5 PRASAD, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN, KACHIYIL MEENATHETHIL, PEROORKARAZHMA MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001.

¶16

6 KABEER RAWTHER, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. MEERAN RAWTHER, KACHIYIL MEENATHETHIL, PEROORKARAZHMA MURI, THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001.

¶17

WP(C).No.1529 OF 2020 2

¶18

7 SANTHAKUMARI, KACHIYIL MEENATHETHIL, PEROORKARAZHMA MURI, THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001.

¶19

SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR, SC

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.1529 OF 2020 3

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 1^st respondent to refer the matter to the 2^nd respondent for adjudicating the dispute under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that she and her son are the owners and in possession of 12.96 ares of landed property comprised in Resurvey No.142/1 of Thamarakkulam Village. On the strength of the request made by the respondents 5 to 7, who are her neighbours, the KSEB has taken a decision to shift the electric line to be drawn through the property of the petitioner. Her grievance is that she would suffer incalculable loss if the posts are shifted. In the said circumstances, she offered resistance and obstruction and submitted Exhibit P3 representation narrating her grievance. However, ignoring the mandate under Section 10 read with section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, the respondent No.3 has not referred the matter to the 2^nd respondent.

¶25

In the nature of relief I propose to pass, notice to respondents 5 to 7 are dispensed with.

¶26

WP(C).No.1529 OF 2020 4

¶27

On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no impediment in referring the matter to the 2^nd respondent .

¶28

In view of the said submission, Exhibit P3 representation filed by the petitioner shall be treated as obstruction/ resistance and the competent among respondents 3 and 4 shall refer the matter to the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Act. If the matter reaches the 2^nd respondent, necessary orders shall be passed expeditiously and after hearing the rival objections, at any rate, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of reference.

¶29

Till such orders are passed, status quo as on date shall be maintained.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

sru

¶34

WP(C).No.1529 OF 2020 5

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO. 31/2020 OF THE HONBLE MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKARA.

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/01/2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/01/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶40

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

Saraswathy Amma v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswathy Amma v. the 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

Aswin Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Idukki District Government Employees and Pensioners Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs the Assistant Engineer

Manoj Kumar P.G. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Sunder Wheat Roller Flour Mills Private Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Vs the Sub Divisional Engineer

The Assistant Engineer Vs Dr.K.Anilkumar