IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 22842 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
MINI MARY JACOB
RESIDING AT KOONTHUPALLIL HOUSE,
K.P.ROAD, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA 690502.
BY ADV R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, CIVIL STATION BEACH ROAD,
ALAPPUZHA - 688001.
2 THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KSEB, KAYAMKULAM.
3 RANGASWAMY CHETTIAR,
RESIDING AT NADIYILETHU HOUSE, KAYAMKULAM 690502.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KAYAMKULAM- PUTHIYIDAM, KAYAMKULAM,
KERALA 690502.
R BY GP SRI.JIMMY GEORGE
BY SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH (SC)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 22842 OF 2022 ..2..
JUDGMENT
The 3rd respondent submitted an application for supply of electricity to his premises and the petitioner raised objection in drawing the electric line across her premises. The matter was referred to the Additional District Magistrate/ 1st respondent (ADM) by the licensee.
2. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.22030/2022 before this Court, contending that the petitioner is not supplied with the report of the Village Officer or of the concerned Electricity Department to defend the case before the ADM. This Court on 06.07.2022, by Ext.P5 judgment, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the ADM to decide the application of the 3rd respondent, in accordance with law. It was further directed that all the parties shall be supplied with the report of the Village Officer or of the concerned Electricity Department for an effectual and proper adjudication of the controversy.
WP(C) NO. 22842 OF 2022 ..3..
3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even though the copy of the judgment was served on the ADM, the ADM passed Ext.P6 order under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885, permitting the licensee to draw the electric line to the premises of the 3rd respondent, through the property of the petitioner, after rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that, Ext.P6 is antedated and passed in total disregard to the directions in Ext.P5 judgment.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board. Though notice was issued to the 3rd respondent, there is no appearance.
5. On a perusal of Ext.P6, it is seen that the same was passed on 06.07.2022, on the very same date on which Ext.P5 judgment was rendered by this Court. It is apparent that the directions in Ext.P5 judgment were not WP(C) NO. 22842 OF 2022 ..4..
taken into consideration while passing Ext.P6 order. Therefore, Ext.P6 order is set aside and the 1 st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, after complying with the directions of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment. Fresh orders as above, shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that I have not made any opinion on the merits of the case.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB/10/08/2022
WP(C) NO. 22842 OF 2022 ..5..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22842/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DATED 6.1.2022 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.4.2022TO EXT.P1 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.6.2022 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS, ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.6.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P5 -TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.7.2022 IN WPC NO. 22030 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2022 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND ITS TRANSLATION.