Kerala High Court
C.O.Kochukunju vs Additional District Magistrate on 15 July, 1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/3RD ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 21364 of 2012 (U)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
C.O.KOCHUKUNJU, AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.OOMMEN, CHAKKALAYIL VEEDU, KADAPRA MURI
KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
(DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL) PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, MANIPUZHA
THIRUVALLA-689 101.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PULIKOZH, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PIN-689 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 101.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAPRA, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 101.
6. THE SECRETARY, KADAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
NIRANAM P.O., THIRUVALLA PIN-689 101.
7. C.O.ABRAHAM, S/O.OOMMEN, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, KADAPRA MURI
KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK-689 101.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEDEV
BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
WP(C).No. 21364 of 2012 (U)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
--------
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
----------------------
EXHIBT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER KADAPRA DATED 15/7/1995.
EXHIBT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION PASSED BY THE
MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA ON 04/07/2011.
EXHIBT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH FILED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER DATED 11/7/2011.
EXHIBT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.1828/2011 IN
OS NO.296/2011 AND IA NO./1853/2011 IN OS NO.307/2011 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED 21/10/2011.
EXHIBT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 24/12/2011.
EXHIBT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30/3/2012.
EXHIBT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONL
OFFICER, DATED 7/4/2012.
EXHIBT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, IN WPC NO.11114/2012 DATED 22/6/2012.
EXHIBT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE REPOPRT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA ON 26/5/2012.
EXHIBT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 7/6/2012.
EXHIBT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
23/6/2012.
EXHIBT P12. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 27/6/2012.
EXHIBT P13. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
24/8/2012.
RESPONDENTS : NIL
-------------
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
VK
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c) No. 21364 OF 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of September , 2012
JUDGMENT
The electricity connection sought to be provided to the premises of the 7th respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, is in dispute. The case of the petitioner is that, the 7th respondent sought to obtain the electric connection by drawing the line through the property of the petitioner in a clandestine manner and merely on the basis of an ex- parte interim order obtained from a Civil Court, inspite of the fact that the said order was subsequently set aside and there were different rounds of litigation including as borne by Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.11114/2012.
2. The learned counsel for the 7th respondent submits that, the version put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition is not correct and that the ex-parte interim order was subsequently made absolute and all the parties including the Board found that the route proposed by the Board was the most feasible one and less expensive. It was after a detailed analysis of the facts and figures, that Ext.P13 order came to be W.P.(C)No.21364/2012 2 passed by the first respondent on 24/08/2012, permitting the line to be drawn through the route as proposed by the KSEB and as such, no interference is warranted.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that, pursuant to the finalisation of the proceedings before the first respondent as per Ext.P13, the power supply was provided to the 7th respondent on 4/09/2012. It is also pointed out that, it involved only 33 Metres of 'weather proof line'; that too along the boundary of the property concerned, near to which a pathway is situated. The factual position as above is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the relevant merits and demerits have not been discussed before arriving at the inference. It is also pointed out that, even the first respondent had called for a report from the Tahsildar, as discernible from Ext.P13 and undue reliance has been placed on the said report, copy of which was never given to the petitioner and the petitioner has been denied an opportunity to explain the position, as no further hearing was granted after obtaining the report. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 7th respondent has purchased property of a third party and by virtue of the turn of events, it is quite W.P.(C)No.21364/2012 3 possible to draw the line through the said property, so as to facilitate electric connection, which though pointed out, was omitted to be considered by the first respondent, while passing Ext.P13 order.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the matter requires to be re-examined by the first respondent after hearing all the parties concerned, with liberty to substantiate their case. Since the power supply has already been provided to the premises of the 7th respondent , there will not be any prejudice to the 7th respondent for the time being, till the matter is finalised as above. Accordingly, Ext.P13 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and also after serving a copy of the report of the Tahsildar to the parties. The proceedings shall be finalised in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 'Status quo' will continue till such time.
Writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv.
W.P.(C)No.21364/2012 4 W.P.(C)No.21364/2012 5