Dismissed

K. Vidyadharan v. Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Kerala HC7 Jul 2022WP(C)/12025/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an ADM’s order rejecting a claim for free relocation of electricity posts. The Court held the order was legal, not arbitrary, and the delay of 30 years did not warrant interference, affirming KSEB was entitled to costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner’s application for free relocation of posts was rejected; Writ Petition dismissed.

K. Vidyadharan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 12025 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

K. VIDYADHARAN,
AGED 60 YEARS,
SARADHI, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ALUVA, PIN - 683110
BY ADVS.
RENJINI M. RENJITH
N.KRISHNA OZHAKKANAT
LAKSHMINARAYAN.R

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – KSEB,
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695004

¶9

2 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ERNAKULAM ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PIN – 695004

¶10

3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICALS SUB DIVISION, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN – 683513

¶11

4 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICALS SUB DIVISION, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN – 683513

¶12

5 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030

¶13

BY ADV.
SRI JIMMY GEORGE, GP
SRI B PREMOD, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 12025 OF 2022 -2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Order of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) dated 13.01.2022 rejecting the complaint of the petitioner for changing the posts P/CK/44/6/1 and the lines which are installed in survey No.170/11A of Kottuvally Village, Paravur Taluk, has been assailed.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said connection lines and posts were installed in 2012. The matter was required to be adjudicated by ADM, Ernakulam after having afforded the opportunity to both parties i.e., the Electricity Board and complainant and the complaint has been rejected. It is contended that vide Ext.P8 the previous consumer had also certified that the connection was issued only in 2012 whereas it is in 1992 as observed by the ADM. The posts and the lines have to be shifted at the expense of the KSEB and not by the complainant.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 12025 OF 2022 -3-

¶20

As per the report from the Electricity

¶21

department, the connections were issued on 20.06.1992 and the complaint had been submitted after the expiry of thirty(30) years. KSEB had not rejected the request but agreed to change the posts and the lines on payment of the expenses of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

¶22

The order of the ADM does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity. No ground for interference is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

AMIT RAWAL

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

vv

¶27

WP(C) NO. 12025 OF 2022 -4-

¶28

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12025/2022

¶29

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶30

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 25.02.1992
Exhibit3RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT-P2; BY 4TH
RESPONDENT. ESTIMATE OF RS. 25480/-
DEMANDED FROM THE PETITIONER TO
RELOCATE ELECTRIC POSTS DATED
16.07.2021 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
THE SAME
Exhibit4APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER TO
RELOCATE THE POST AT 2ND RESPONDENT'S
EXPENSE DATED 19.07.2021 AND ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF THE SAME
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
22.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT TO REMIT AN AMOUNT OF
RS. 25,480/-
Exhibit5LETTER FROM 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DEMANDING 24, 913 RUPEES TO
RELOCATE ELECTRIC POST DATED
25.08.2021 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
THE SAME
Exhibit6REGISTERED LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER
TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.09.2021 AND
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAME
Exhibit P4APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER TO
RELOCATE THE POST AT 2ND RESPONDENT'S
EXPENSE DATED 19.07.2021

¶31

WP(C) NO. 12025 OF 2022 -5-

¶32

Exhibit P5LETTER FROM 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DEMANDING 24, 913 RUPEES
Exhibit7LETTER FROM 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DEMANDING 24, 913 RUPEES TO
RELOCATE ELECTRIC POST DATED
13.10.2021 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
THE SAME
Exhibit8LETTER FROM SRI. ROBY TO 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2021 AND
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAME
Exhibit P6REGISTERED LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER
TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.09.2021
Exhibit P7LETTER FROM 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DEMANDING 24, 913 RUPEES TO
RELOCATE ELECTRIC POST DATED
13.10.2021
Exhibit9ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
30/01/2022 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
THE SAME
Exhibit P8LETTER FROM SRI. ROBY TO 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2021
Exhibit P9ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED
30/01/2022

K. Vidyadharan v. Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Vidyadharan v. Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

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

Muhammed K.M Vs v,R Premkumar

Pg Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Road Transport Employees' Welfare Association, Vs Biju Prabhakar, I.A.S.

T.T.Raman Vs Forest Industries (Travancore) Ltd.

Kerala Khadi Village Industries Board Vs Nisha K.K

Kerala State Financial Corporation Ltd.,(Corrected) Vs Smt. Margarat Antony