Kerala High Court
Joby Jose vs The Additional District Magistrate on 6 December, 2018
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 23255 of 2018
PETITIONER:
JOBY JOSE, CHERUVATHOOR VEEDU, NEDUMBARA CENTRE,
KARANCHIRA P.O. KATTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT.
SHINY CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O. KATTOOR
VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS
KUM.ALEENA JOLLY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR, PIN 680 003
2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B. KATTOOR- 680 702
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KSEB, IRINJALAKUDA, PIN- 680 121
4 DINESH P.S.
SECRETARY MARANANDARA SEVA SAMITHY,
NEDUMBARA CENTRE, KARANCHIRA P.O. KATTOOR- 680 702
SRI.ARUNKUMAR.A. - SC
SRI.SUNILNATH - GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 23255 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner makes a limited prayer that an alternate alignment which he has proposed, for the erection of an electric line, be directed to be considered by the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur. He makes this prayer on the foundational assertion that in Ext.P11 order, even though the present alignment assailed by him has been discussed in detail and as to how the same is feasible, there is not even a mention regarding the alternate line that he had proposed through the side of the building in question so that the beneficiary will also obtain the electric supply without prejudice being caused to anyone.
2. When this matter was heard on 12.11.2018, I had directed the respondent - KSEB to file their counter pleadings on record so as to explain whether the alternate alignment, as suggested by the petitioner herein, was considered by the Additional District Magistrate.
3. Today when this matter was called, even though there are no pleadings filed on record on behalf of the KSEB, the learned standing counsel submits that he has instructions that the alternate line was also considered by the Additional District Magistrate and that it was found to be not feasible but he concedes that for some reason, Ext.P11 is silent on this issue. He, therefore, says that the KSEB has no objection if the WP(C).No. 23255 of 2018 3 Additional District Magistrate be directed to reconsider the alternate line and issue appropriate orders.
4. In the afore circumstances, I direct the first respondent - Additional District Magistrate to consider the alternate alignment proposed by the petitioner and take a decision thereon after following the imperative statutory procedure and mandate, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties, as expeditiously as possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. I make it clear that I do not propose to quash Ext.P11 order for the time being and I deem it appropriate to allow the first respondent to decide whether any modification is required after the exercise as ordered herein, also taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the KSEB that the electric line as ordered in Ext.P11 has already been drawn.
6. Consequently, if the first respondent arrives at a finding that the alternate alignment now suggested by the petitioner is feasible, then notwithstanding Ext.P11, the Authorities will be obligated to redraw the line as per law but without charging any expenses from the petitioner.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
stu Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE. WP(C).No. 23255 of 2018 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED ON 15-03-2017 AT THE EMBASSY OF INDIA ABHUDABI EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 25-8-2017 WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 25-8-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF PETITION DATED 16-09-2017 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF PETITION DATED 16-09-2017 FILED BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER KSEB KATTOOR WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF LETTER NO.ES/KTR/RIA/2017-18 DATED 07-10- 2017 RECEIVED FROM KSEB KATTOOR WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF RECEIPT NO.45121/17 DATED 27-09-2017 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF NOTICE NO.C-4/49893/2017 SRE/135/2017 DATED 07-02-2018 OF 3RD RESPONDENT WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 16-05-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF RECEIPT NO.C4/15881/18 DATED 16-05-2018 WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER C-4/49893/2017 (SR/ET/135/2017 DATED 08-06-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SERVICE WIRE DRAWN OVER THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER.
WP(C).No. 23255 of 20185 EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL POST SITUATED NEAR THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE.