Mohammed Thalhath vs Kerala State Electricity Board
2022 Latest Caselaw 8314 Ker

                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.