Disposed

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

Kerala HC5 Feb 2020WP(C)/2651/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner society sought writs directing the respondent electricity officials to shift/remove electrical equipment and restrict a third party's connection. Standing counsel for officials undertook to consider the representation, leading the court to dispense with notice and fix a six-week time-frame for orders.

What did the court decide?

No further orders; the competent respondent authorities directed to consider the representation within six weeks and pass appropriate orders.

Idukki District Government Employees and Pensioners Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs the Assistant Engineer — Kerala HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.2651 OF 2020(F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

IDUKKI DISTRICT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.I-592, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHEENA THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. SHAJI MATHEW, PANTHANANICKAL HOUSE, THANKAMANY KARA, IDUKKI TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.U.M.HASSAN SMT.P.PARVATHY SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED SHRI.GAUTHAM MOHAN H. SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PYNAVU, VAZHATHOPPU, IDUKKI-685 603.

¶11

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI-685 508.

¶12

3 K.V.VINCENT, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, KALAYATHUMPARA PUTHENPURAYIL, MANIYARANKUDY P.O., IDUKKI VILLAGE-685 602.

¶13

4 SUMATHY, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O. ACHUTAN, MATTATHU HOUSE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., CHERUTHONY KARA, IDUKKI-685 602. NOW RESIDING AT CHAKKALAYIL, CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI-685 602.

¶14

WP(C).No.2651 OF 2020 2

¶15

5 MOBY C.B., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. BABY, CHAKKALAYIL, CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI-685 602.

¶16

SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.2651 OF 2020 3

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The above captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

i. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus or other appropriate Writ directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to shift the transformer, switch board etc. established by the 3rd respondent in front of the petitioner society's room bearing No. X/1651;

¶22

ii. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus or other appropriate Writ directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to remove the switchboard and other equipments mounted on the wall of the petitioner society's room bearing No. X/1651 by the 3rd respondent;

¶23

iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondent not to grant III phase electricity connection to the 3^rd respondent in the property in question before disposing Exhibit P4 representation;

¶24

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider Exhibit P4 representation within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶25

WP(C).No.2651 OF 2020 4

¶26

Heard.

¶27

In view of the order I propose to pass, notice to the party respondents are dispensed with.

¶28

Sri B. Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the 3^rd respondent has not even applied for a Three Phase connection as averred in the writ Petition. He would further submit that the apprehension entertained by the petitioner that a transformer would be placed in front of the room wherein the society is functioning and that the switchboard would be placed inside is misconceived. He would further submit that as the respondents 1 and 2 have received Exhibit P4 representation submitted by the petitioner and if any request is received from the party respondents for 3 Phase electrical connection, the objection raised and the inconvenience that is likely to be caused to the petitioner shall also be considered.

¶29

In view of the undertaking given by standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, no further orders are required to be passed. However competent among the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider Exhibit P4 representation and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from today. The

¶30

WP(C).No.2651 OF 2020 5

¶31

petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ petition along the judgment

¶32

to ensure compliance.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

sru

¶37

WP(C).No.2651 OF 2020 6

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED NO.1404/1/2016 DATED 30.7.2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER 27.12.2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.63/17 IN O.S.8/17, I.A.123/17 IN O.S.23/17 AND I.A.210/17 IN O.S.47/17 IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF IDUKKI. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION.

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Saroj.C. Vs the District Collector

M/S. X Print Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited

The Managing Director Vs the State of Kerala

Aswin Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

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

Jayasree S,Nair Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board