Allowed

Joseph Joseph v. Power Grid Corporation of India

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024CRP/228/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's O.P.(Electricity) claiming compensation for electric lines drawn over his property was dismissed for non-representation; his restoration application filed after eight years with delay condonation was refused below. On revision, the High Court restored the petition but denied interest for the default period.

What did the court decide?

O.P.(Electricity) No.305/2008 restored; no interest payable on compensation from 29.06.2009 until restoration; dismissal if not diligently prosecuted.

Joseph Joseph Vs Power Grid Corporation of India — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

CRP NO. 228 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2019 IN IA NO.426/2018 & 427/2018 IN OP (ELECTRICITY) NO.305/2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT COURT - VI, KOLLAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

JOSEPH JOSEPH AGED 55 YEARS KOTTOOR VEEDU, KOTTAVASAL VEEDU, ARYANKAVU, PATHANAPURAM 691309. BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CAMP OFFICE, PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 017. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR COMPENSATION, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, CAMP OFFICE, PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 017.

¶12

BY ADVS. K.P.HARISH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MILLU DANDAPANI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR POWER GRID CORPORATION

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.R.P.NO.228 of 2019

ORDER

Dated this the 05^th day of June, 2024

¶18

The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the

¶19

dismissal of his application for setting aside the dismissal of the O.P.(Electricity) filed by him.

¶20

Going by the pleadings in the revision petition, the O.P.(Electricity) was dismissed for non-representation on 29.06.2009. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside that order and restoring the Original Petition only in the year 2017, along with an application for condoning the delay of more than 3000 days in filing the restoration application. Finding no acceptable reason to have been stated for condoning the inordinate delay, the court below dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the restoration application also.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, indisputably, the petitioner has suffered injury and loss due to the drawing of electric lines over his

¶22

C.R.P.NO.228 of 2019

¶23

¶24

property and therefore, it would be unjust to deny him the compensation legitimately due, on technical grounds.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the court below was fully justified in dismissing the applications, inasmuch as the Original Petition itself was dismissed for non-representation and the application for restoration filed after eight years.

¶26

Although I find substantial merit in the objection raised, considering that the petitioner would have suffered injury and loss due to the drawing of electric lines over his property, I deem it appropriate to grant him an opportunity to substantiate the claim for compensation. At the same time, the respondents cannot be mulcted with the liability of paying interest for the period from the date on which the Original Petition was dismissed for default till restoration of the Original Petition.

¶27

C.R.P.NO.228 of 2019

¶28

¶29

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly

¶30

allowed as under;

¶31

(i) The court below shall restore O.P. (Electricity) No.305/2008 to its file.

¶32

(ii) In the event of the court below finding the petitioner to be eligible for compensation, he

¶33

shall not be entitled for interest from the date of dismissal of the Original Petition on

¶34

29.06.2009, till the date of restoration of the

¶35

Original Petition pursuant to this order.

¶36

(iii) If the Original Petition is not diligently prosecuted after restoration, the court below shall forthwith dismiss the petition.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/5-6

Joseph Joseph v. Power Grid Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Joseph v. Power Grid Corporation of India

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

Madanlal Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Abdul Kalam Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Sulfikkar Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

The Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Kochukuttan

Unnikrishnan O, Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Rashid, Vs the Station House Officer