Partly allowed

Valsamma Mathew v. the Executive Engineer

Kerala HC19 Jul 2022WP(C)/23067/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

To ensure compliance with a property owner's grievance over unauthorized transformer installation, this court directed the Kerala State Electricity Board to consider representations within one month.

What did the court decide?

A direction was issued to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 representations with notice to the petitioner within one month.

Valsamma Mathew Vs the Executive Engineer — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23067 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

VALSAMMA MATHEW, AGED 62 YEARS W/O. MATHEW DEVASIA (LATE), KANNAMTHARA HOUSE,

¶8

MALAKUNNAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY,

¶9

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686549

¶10

BY ADVS. M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY ANOOP SATHYAN MATHEW DEVASSI ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA REMYA M. MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶13

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686101

¶14

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶15

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD SUB DIVISION, KURICHY, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686532

¶16

BY ADV B.PREMOD R BY JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 23067 OF 2022 ..2..

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner states to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of the properties covered by Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, the respondents have installed transformer on the north western corner of the said property without obtaining permission from the petitioner. It is also stated that the respondents have installed three stay wires in the property of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations before the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not taken any steps pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 representations submitted by the petitioner.

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a

¶23

WP(C) NO. 23067 OF 2022 ..3..

¶24

direction is issued to the respondents to consider Exts.P3 and P4 representations within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶25

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made at the bar, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 representations with notice to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the matter pending consideration before the respondents.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶27

Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶28

SB/19/07/2022

¶29

WP(C) NO. 23067 OF 2022 ..4..

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23067/2022

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 10.11.2005 BEARING NO. 3163/2005 BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY
Exhibit P1 (a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P1
Exhibit P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.01.2022 ISSUED FROM THE KURICHY VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P2 (a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P2.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.03.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P3
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.03.2022 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P4

Valsamma Mathew v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsamma Mathew 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajayan P. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Jomon Devasia Vs Mithun T.R.

Priyadarsan A.J. Vs the Secretary

The Director (Reji Varghese) Vs Labour Court

Augustine Joseph Vs Titus P.J

Jibin Bobus Vs Dr. Prakash Kumar B