IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 21624 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
MOHAMMED THALHATH, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,
MALAVATTATH HOUSE,
PULAMANTHOLE P.O.,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
, PIN - 679323
BY ADVS.
SANTHEEP ANKARATH
P.ANIRUDHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695004
2 ASSISTANT ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SECTION,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 679322
3 MOHAMMED HYDER ALI
S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,
MALAVATTATH HOUSE,
PULAMANTHOLE P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - , PIN - 679323
R BY SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNANTH, SC KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21624 OF 2022 ..2..
JUDGMENT
The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application before the 2nd respondent for shifting the electric post which is situated in the middle of the way leading to his property. The petitioner has in Ext.P3 stated that he is prepared to meet all the expenses for shifting the electric post from the way. However, the 2nd respondent, by Ext.P4, informed the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has objected to the shifting of the electric post from the pathway and directed the petitioner to produce No Objection Certificate from all the owners having right over the way. On receipt of Ext.P4, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 2nd respondent stating that, if the post is shifted from the pathway and placed on his property, that is not going to affect any other person. The petitioner submits that Ext.P5 request of the petitioner is not so far considered by the 2 nd respondent. The limited prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for a consideration of Ext.P5 by the 2 nd WP(C) NO. 21624 OF 2022 ..3..
respondent, de hors the observations in Ext.P4.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the direction I propose to issue, notice to the 3 rd respondent is dispensed with.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and take a fresh decision thereon, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of Ext.P5 representation pending before the 2 nd respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,
JUDGE
SB/01/07/2022
WP(C) NO. 21624 OF 2022 ..4..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21624/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED
5.8.2009 AND NUMBERED AS DOC. NO. 3822/2009 OF PERINTHALMANNA SRO EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF A SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.3.2022.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13.6.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.