Remanded

Saleena P.Shoukath v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (Kseb)

Kerala HC11 Nov 2022WP(C)/14237/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the proposed shifting of an existing transformer, the Court held that the Additional District Magistrate must adjudicate the dispute regarding the ingress and egress of petitioners. The Court directed the ADM to inspect premises and seek a report within two months, maintaining an interim order pending this exercise.

What did the court decide?

The Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Ernakulam is directed to inspect premises, seek a report from the Electricity Department, and adjudicate the controversy within two months.

Saleena P.Shoukath Vs the Kerala State Electricity… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 14237 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 SALEENA P.SHOUKATH AGED 54 YEARS W/O.BABU K.NALAKATH, THE HERITAGE BUNGALOW, MAKKANAI, MANNAM, NORTH PARAVUR P.O., PIN - 683 520. 2 SHAJITHA HUSSAIN AGED 56 YEARS W/O.HUSSAIN, THARAEPPARAMBIL, KIZHIPILIKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 702. BY ADVS. M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN K.SUNIL M.ARDRA KRISHNAN ALEENA MARIA JOSE KRISHNENDU.D

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED (KSEB) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683 513. 3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683 513. 4 ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MANNAM DIVISION, MANNAM, PIN - 683 520.

¶9

WP(C) No.14237/2022

¶10

¶11

5 REZIYA HUSSAIN AGED 62 YEARS W/O.LATE HUSSAIN, FAYAZ MANZIL, MANNAM, NORTH PARAVUR P.O., PIN - 683 520. 6 ADDITIONAL R6 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 VIDE THIS JUDGMENT BY ADVS. MUHAMMED RIYAZUDEEN ARUN CHAND VINAYAK G MENON BHARAT VIJAY P. THAREEQ ANVER K. MAJID MUHAMMED K. SRI.JOSWIN THAMPI KUNNATH, SC, KSEB

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.14237/2022

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are joint owners of the land to the extent of 50 cents on the southern side of Paravur-Manjali PWD road as per Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.6047 of 1994. The total road frontage is approximately 32 mtrs. and the residential building is situated on the western side of the property having an extent of 25 cents almost towards the northern side. The major portion of the property is stated to be on the southern side of the residential building and one Makkanai junction is situated on the north eastern corner of the property owned by the fifth respondent. Two electric posts with Nos.VM 45/1 and 46/1 are in existence for more than past 40 years on the road. The fifth respondent constructed a multi-storied building and had submitted an application for shifting of the transformer to the respondent Electricity Board by depositing requisite charges. When the petitioner came to know about the attempt being made for erection of the two posts on the entry point of the house of the petitioner, Ext.P3 complaint was submitted on 10.03.2022 to the Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Mannam Division and Ext.P4 petition before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Collectorate, Ernakulam. Since no action was taken, petitioner approached this Court for

¶17

WP(C) No.14237/2022

¶18

¶19

vindication of the grievance. This Court vide order dated 22.04.2022 protected the shifting of the transformer for a period of two months.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that it is the duty of the ADM to adjudicate the dispute as and when any objection is raised by the affected party with regard to the drawing of the overhead lines or shifting of the transformer. Once the complaint was submitted to the Assistant Engineer, they were duty bound, as per the provisions of the Rules, to refer the complaint to the ADM. Having not done so, the petitioners, as an abundant precaution also submitted a request to the ADM. Without adjudication of the same, the transfer cannot be issued.

¶21

Learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board do not deny the receipt of the objection Ext.P3 and submits that since the petitioners have already approached the ADM, they will submit their route plan and other options for shifting of the transformer which may not cause hindrance to the ingress and egress of the petitioners' residence.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.5 submitted that the apprehension of the petitioners

¶23

WP(C) No.14237/2022

¶24

¶25

is far-fetched, it is not affecting their ingress and egress, but, an attempt to delay the shifting of the transformer as the petitioners and the fifth respondent are not on talking te rms being neighbourers .

¶26

I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that this is a fit case where ADM, Ernakulam, is required to adjudicate the controversy regarding shifting of the transformer from the place which it had been in existence for a period of 40 years purported to be blocking the ingress and egress of the petitioners, which has been emphatically denied by the respondents. The Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Collectorate, Ernakulam, is suo motu impleaded as additional sixth respondent. The fact remains it is the prime duty of the ADM to seek report from concerned Electricity Department and also inspect the premises in case it is found to be most prudent and valid . Let this exercise be undertaken by the ADM within a period of two months from the date of receipt a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time, the interim order passed by this Court dated 22.04.2022 shall continue to operate.

¶27

Writ petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

csl

WP(C) No.14237/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14237/2022

¶34

PETITIO	NERS'	EXHIBITS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.6047 OF 1994 OF S.R.O., PARAVUR DATED 10/10/1994.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY PETITION DATED 21/3/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit	P5	PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE EXISTING TRANSFORMER AND THE POSTS.
RESPOND	ENTS'	EXHIBITS
Exhibit	R5(a)	THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE TRANSFORMER.
Exhibit	R5(b)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S SON TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	R5(c)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE WILLING CERTIFICATE DATED 07/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	R5(d)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT REMITTANCE SLIP DATED 21/02/2022 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Saleena P.Shoukath v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (Kseb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleena P.Shoukath v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (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

E.v.Somasundaran Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Moahmmed Hinas Vs Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board - Khwwb

Bpl India Ltd., Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

C.Sachidanandan Vs T.D.Mani

Union Bank of India Vs the Controlling Authority

P.B.Abdul Basheer Vs the Deputy Cheif Engineer