Mini Mary Jacob vs The Additional District ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9340 Ker

                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.