Dismissed

Dr.S.Babaprasad v. the District Collector

Kerala HC26 Jul 2022WP(C)/7084/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a joint venture director challenging the installation of street lights by villa plot owners. The court found the petitioner lacked locus standi and merit, noting the matter concerned the betterment of the area rather than a disputed agreement requiring adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs sought regarding directions to the Collector and KSEB were denied.

Dr.S.Babaprasad Vs the District Collector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 7084 OF 2021

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

DR.S.BABAPRASAD AGED 48 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN, DIRECTOR, APSTONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., TC 17/2768, POTTAKUZHI, OPP.KSEB, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. BY ADVS. PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.E.S.SANEEJ SRI.M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.M.K.SAMYUKTHA SRI.N.ABHILASH SHRI.DEEPU RAJAGOPAL

¶5

RESPONDENT/S:

¶6

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 043. 2 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM695 004. 3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KAZHAKOOTTAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 582. 4 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KAZHAKOOTTAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 582. 5 THE SECRETARY, POTHENCODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 584.

¶7

6 APSTONE VILLA PLOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, VILLA NO.3, APSTONE VILLAS, ANDOORKONAM, ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM-695 584, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. J.JAYAKUMAR Dinoop PD SARITHA NANDANAN(K/719/2010) M.R.SUDHEENDRAN(K/588/1994)

¶8

OTHER PRESENT:

¶9

GP SRI JIMMY GEORGE

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 7084 OF 2021

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Petitioner is alleging to be a Director of Apstone Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. engaged in construction of Villa under the name of 'Apstone Villa Projects' at Andoorkonam Village, Thiruvananthapuram. The land in which the project is to be implemented was taken by the company under a joint venture agreement dated 5.8.2020 with its owners and there are different owners and several joint ventures. It has an extent of 172.07 Ares of land. Claims to be aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the department in not invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph, 1885 Act by not referring the matter in dispute to the competent authority. 6^th respondent, Apstone Villa Plot Owners Association is of the allottees of the proposed project and had agreed that, the electricity to the villas shall be made available through 'Solar System' as per the conditions enumerated in the agreement. But without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, submitted an application dated 4.3.2021, Ext.P3 to the 3^rd respondent, KSEB for installation of street light in electric post. The said request has been objected by the petitioner on the premise that it is without the consent and since there is an agreement among the plot owners of providing street light through Solar System, they cannot independently submit an application to

¶15

WP(C) NO. 7084 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

the Board for the purpose as mentioned above in as much as that there are 44 unsold plots in the project and the interest of the prospective clients had not been taken into consideration. There is no clarity of providing additional electric post and street lights for the remaining area of the project and thus urged this Court for granting the following reliefs:

¶18

To direct the 1^st respondent to take up Ext.P5 complaint and pass orders on the same with personal hearing to the petitioner and others, thereby direct the 3^rd and 4^th respondent to maintain status-quo till then, in the interest of justice.

¶19

To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 objections after granting petitioner an opportunity of being heard and refer the matter under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph within a time limit, in the interest of justice.

¶20

5^th and 6^th respondents have filed a counter statement and opposed the aforementioned prayers on the premise that as per the contents of the sale deed dated 20.11.2017 executed in favour of one of the member of the Association namely Vishnu R Sharma, Ext.R6-1, purchasers have the right to use the roads for vehicular traffic, to draw electric, water, telephone, drainage, internet lines etc. The Association had already purchased the plots and raised the construction of the residential houses and residing there with family and there are about 40 villas which are so occupied. The original

¶21

WP(C) NO. 7084 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

land developer, MPS India Holidays Pvt. Ltd did not provide any street lights whereas the electric connection is to be given to the individual villas in the respective name of the owners of the villas. Panchayath had already granted the permission and a sum of Rs.1,80,224/-, 3,24,465/- and 93,124/- has been deposited to the KSEB evident from Ext.R6(2), R6(3) and R6(4) respectively. None of the conditions of the joint venture agreement mention about providing of the solar lights. But the petitioner has unnecessarily been meddling with the process and trying to protract the same. Petitioner has no locus standi to raise any objection on installation of street lights.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit. The joint venture agreement placed on record do not reflect any of the conditions as sought to be projected by the petitioner of providing the solar system. Even otherwise the expenses incurred for providing the street lights are borne by the respondent No.6, Association. Once they have undertaken to maintain its liability, the petitioner cannot have any possible conclusions/ objections. If at all, there was some agreement, the remedy for the petitioner to seek implementation in a competent court of law but not through present

¶25

WP(C) NO. 7084 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

writ petition. Be that as it may, there is no such dispute which was required to be referred to the ADM for adjudication as it is for the betterment a nd providing one of the amenities to the residence of the area. Bonafides of the petitioner, in this case, is not only lacking but appears to be a malafide. Without commenting further, I do not deem it appropriate to grant the reliefs. Writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

sab

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 7084 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7084/2021

¶35

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit R6(1) A true copy of one sale deed dated 20/11/2017 Exhibit R6(2) True copy of letter dated 12/5/2020 issued by KSEB Exhibit R6(3) True copy of the receipt dated 14/5/2020 Exhibit R6(4) True copy of receipt dated 4/11/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION DATED 25.04.2019. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT DATED 05.08.2020 WITH THE PETITIONER., EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.2021. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.2021. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.03.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Dr.S.Babaprasad v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.S.Babaprasad v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunish K.v., Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Kannur

Thajima, Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan.M., Vs State of Kerala

Dr.a.Biju Vs Dr. v Venu IAS

W.G.Ajay Kumar Vs Prof.Rajanna

V.R Shylaja Vs Biju Prabhakar, I.A.S