Dismissed

Mary Vasantha v. 1. Additional District Magistrate

Kerala HC14 Nov 2022WP(C)/5469/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an ADM order restricting street light electrification to 90 meters. The Court upheld the order as a temporary measure justified by a pending civil suit regarding land ownership and an injunction, refusing to interfere in the interim. The petition was held sans merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was held to be sans merit; the ADM order was found to be perfectly justified pending the outcome of the civil suit and the injunction.

Mary Vasantha Vs 1. Additional District… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5469 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MARY VASANTHA AGED 54 YEARS W/O LATE PAUL RAH XAVIER, KANNIVADIYIL, PAMPUPARA KARA, WALAYAR DAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678624

¶8

2 SALOMI AGED 53 YEARS W/O.ANTHONY MADALA DAS, KANNIVADIYIL, PAMPUPARA KARA, WALAYAR DAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678624 BY ADVS. T.V.GEORGE LINDA GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001 2 ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER**(CORRECTED) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, WALAYAR ELECTRICAL SECTION, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD, PIN 678621 ** THE CUASE TITLE OF 2ND RESPONDENT "ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER" CORRECTED AND REPLACED BY " ASSISTANT ENGINEER" ( AS PER ORDER DATED 30-06-2022 IN IA 1/2022). 3 PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KANJIKODE P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678521

¶11

4 SANDHYAVU AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE DORAISAMY, KANNIVADIYIL HOUSE, CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR DAM P.O, WALAYAR, PIN - 678624

¶12

¶13

WP(C) No.5469/2022

¶14

BY ADVS. A.ARUNKUMAR Jacob Sebastian K.V.WINSTON(K/147/2010) ANU JACOB(K/1072/2013)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.5469/2022

JUDGMENT

Order of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) dated

¶20

21.01.2022 Ext.P11 confining the application of the street light on a 90 mtr. Pampupara – Sivasakthi road has been assailed on behalf of the petitioners at whose instance Grama Panchayat passed resolution and deposited charges for electrification by street lights, of the entire aforementioned route.

¶21

Petitioners are the wives of two brothers. For the last fifty years, a mud road is in existence developed by Panchayat and concreted 4 mtr. width and 300 mtr. length . The land bearing 16¼ cents was surrendered by the petitioners and their family members through the Panchayat. As per the location map, the electric posts lying on the side of the road are electrified by installing street lights. When the resolution was passed and expenses were deposited in the KSEB, the fourth respondent raised the dispute that part of the land belongs to him and had not allegedly been surrendered to the Panchayat. Also a civil suit bearing No.42 of 2021 was filed by the objectors with interim application bearing No.173 of 2021 and vide order dated 19.01.2021, an order of injunction restraining the defendants therein i.e., petitioners herein from interfering into the property, was passed. The petitioners in

¶22

¶23

WP(C) No.5469/2022

¶24

Writ Petition No.14152 of 2021 approached this Court for issuance of appropriate directions to decide the controversy with regard to the objections filed by the respondents for the purpose of electrification of the entire road by street lights. This Court vide Ext.P6 judgment dated 23.07.2021 disposed of the Writ Petition by issuing directions to the ADM for expeditious disposal of the application.

¶25

On the other hand, the affected parties i.e., plaintiffs had also filed Writ Petition Nos.17541 of 2021 and 15805 of 2021 wherein, noticing the contention of the parties with regard to the pendency of the dispute before the ADM, the Court dealt with the issue relating to the correctness of the drawing of electric line through the private property under the guise of electrification of public road. On the basis of the initial statement placed on record by the Panchayat, this Court found that the electrification for 90 mtrs. was purely on the request of the private individuals. It has nothing to do with the electrification of the Pampupara -Sivasakthi road as some portion did not form part of the road. Considering all the facts, Writ Petitions were disposed of by making it clear that the electrification which has been initiated at the instance of the Panchayat would be strictly restricted to Pampupara Sivasakthi road alone and if there is any requirement for drawing the lines to the

¶26

¶27

WP(C) No.5469/2022

¶28

private properties, the same could be done in accordance with law.

¶29

The ADM vide impugned order Ext.P11, as noticed

¶30

above, ordered for electrification of street light upto 90 mtrs. and electrification of street light for other roads would be decided only after the decision of the controversy.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioners submitted that there has not been a reference to the report of the Grama Panchayat which had categorically clarified that major chunk of land had been only surrendered by the petitioners, and also by the objectors and had formed the part and ownership of the Panchayat. Even otherwise the electric post was only drawn on the berm of th e road and that line would not be in the ownership of any affected party. If at all it is so, they are entitled to claim compensation as per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. The civil suit will take long time, but the electrification of street light cannot be restricted to only 90 mtrs. as has been ordered as per the order of the Labour Court. Therefore, requests for setting aside of the impugned order.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the objector and other official respondents supported the order by submitting that once the controversy with regard to the ownership of remaining part of the road and berm is pending adjudication

¶33

¶34

WP(C) No.5469/2022

¶35

before the civil court and owing to the injunction order, the order of the ADM is perfectly justified confining the electrification only to 90 mtr. of Pampura – Sivasakthi road.

¶36

I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶37

The inspection report of the Panchayat showing the existence of the road and belonging to the Panchayat cannot be a ground for setting aside the order of the ADM as it is yet to be proved in accordance with law in the pending civil suit. The petitioners herein are also respondent Nos.6 to 7 in the judgment dated 25.11.2021 when two writ petitions filed by the objectors were disposed of. The said judgment confined only to electrification of 90 mtrs. of road. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 25.11.2021 in W.P.(C) Nos.17541 of 2021 and WP(C) No.15805 of 2021 read as under :

¶38

“I am not going into the details of the civil dispute since the same has to be taken to its logical end before the Civil Court. As far as the issue involved in these cases are concerned, it appears that the Panchayat had made a request on the basis of a demand from the neighboring owners of land to draw single phase three wire electric line up to 90 metres for the purpose of putting a street light to the North of Pampupara Sivasakthi Road. The request was placed before the Electricity Board and when the work was started, the same was objected by the petitioners stating that the attempts is to draw line through their properties. The matter was taken up before the ADM and a writ petition had also been filed before this Court seeking to speedy disposal of the proceedings before the ADM. It is submitted that the proceedings before the ADM are still pending. The issue which this Court is addressing is only regarding the correctness of drawing electric line to a private property under the guise of electrification of a public road. The counsel for the Panchayat has placed an additional statement, in which it is clearly stated that the electrification for the 90 metres was purely on the request of the private

¶39

¶40

WP(C) No.5469/2022

¶41

individuals and it would appear that it has nothing to do with the electrification of the Pampupara Sivasakthi Road since the said portion does not form part of this road. As such, interest of justice will be served if these writ petitions are disposed of making it clear that the electrification which has been initiated at the instance of the Panchayat shall be strictly restricted to the Pampupara Sivasakthi Road alone and if there is any requirement for drawing lines to the private properties, the same can be done only in accordance with law and cannot be made part of this project. The proceedings before the ADM shall be completed after hearing all the affected parties and having regard to the orders passed by this Court in these writ petitions.”

¶42

9. If at all the petitioners were aggrieved of the said

¶43

observations, could have challenged the same by filing Writ Appeal. ADM confined his decision only as per the order of the High Court and kept the issue open with regard to electrification of the line owing to pendency of the civil suit . I am in agreement with the said finding as until and unless the pending suit is not adjudicated, it is yet to be deciphered as to whether the land actually had been surrendered to the Panchayat or belong to the private respondents. That would be of the outcome of the pending dispute in the civil suit. Order of the ADM for the time being is perfectly justified. No ground for interference is made out at this stage.

¶44

The writ petition sans merit, accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

csl

WP(C) No.5469/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5469/2022

¶51

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit1	TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PAMPUPARA -
	SIVASAKTHI ROAD WITH THE CONCRETE ROAD PORTION TOWARDS NORTHERN SIDE OF KALATHIL AREA, FROM THREE DIFFERENT ANGLES
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION MAP PREPARED BY AN ENGINEER, WALAYAR, SHOWING THE ROADS
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF COMPLIANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.4.2021 ALONG WITH ROUGH SKETCH.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 5.7.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER DTD 19.1.2021 IN I.A NO. 173/2021 IN O.S NO: 42/'21 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 23.7.2021 IN WPC NO. 14152/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 25.11.2021 IN WPC NO. 17541/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6/7/2021 PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF PETITIONERS DATED 11/1/2022 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/1/2022
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO: DCPKD/5044/2021-D8 DATED 21/1/2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF REQUESTS MADE BY THE LOCAL RESIDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

¶53

¶54

WP(C) No.5469/2022

¶55

BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT - PANCHAYAT Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASST. ENGINEER Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY

¶56

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶57

Exhibit R4(a) COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 10.9.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUSSERY EAST VILLAGE Exhibit R4(b) COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DEPUTED IN I.A.NO.174/2021 IN O.S.NO.42/2021 DATED 2.2.2021 Exhibit R2(s) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED ON 09/03/2020 Exhibit R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/08/2020 AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/02/2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 19/01/021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD Exhibit R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/03/2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, WALAYAR TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit R2(f) TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20/03/2021

Mary Vasantha v. 1. Additional District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Vasantha v. 1. Additional District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

C.Sachidanandan Vs T.D.Mani

Union Bank of India Vs the Controlling Authority

Santhamma Jose, Vs Annamma Alexander

Nisha P.T., Vs Kandoth Nallakandi Sathyabhama

The House of Foods and Chemicals (P)Ltd Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization