Kerala High Court
The Assistant Engineer vs Dr.R.Vijayan (Rtd.) on 27 December, 2012
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/13TH MAGHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 34908 of 2015 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
CIRCLE OFFICE, ALAKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, THALIPARAMBA,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
DIVISION OFFICE, PAYYANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, SREEKANTAPURAM.
5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND GENERAL MANAGER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR, SC,
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. DR.R.VIJAYAN (RTD.), MAROTH MOODU,
KONGAL, PARAVOOR P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 301.
2. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN
SRI.B.HARRYLAL
R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 34908 of 2015 (K)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CGRF IN O.P.42/2012
DATED 27.12.2012.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN IN APPEAL
PETITION NO.P/356/2013 DATED 6.2.2014.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.286/15 SUBMITTED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT
NO.286/2015 FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 7.3.2015.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA IN
COMPLAINT NO.286/2015 DATED 17.9.2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R1(A) COPY OF THE SKETCH-4
EXHIBIT R1(B) COPY OF THE SPLIT ESTIMATE, ISSUED TO MY WIFE,
SMT. K.K.RAJALAKSHMI
EXHIBIT R1(C) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF REGULATION 95 IN KERALA
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE, AS FURNISHED TO 1ST
RESPONDENT'S WIFE UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT R1(D) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/10/2014 OBTAINED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No. 34908 of 2015 K
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are officials of the Board who are aggrieved with the order passed by the Lok Ayukta produced at Ext.P5. The grievance sought to be agitated by the first respondent before the Lok Ayukta was the refusal to shift the overhead line over 10 cents of property claimed to be owned by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is said to have made an application for shifting of line for reason of his desire to construct a building in the property. The Lok Ayukta by the impugned order directed the Board to produce the consent if any obtained for drawing such lines and also to show cause as to why WPC.No.34908/2015 : 2 : they should not order shifting of electric line if the same is drawn without knowledge or consent of the land owner.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board impugn Ext.P5 on the ground that the Lok Ayukta does not have jurisdiction to consider the said issue since shifting of an electric line would be regulated by the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 and any grievance would have to be agitated as provided under Section 17 of that Act. The further contention is that the wife who is the actual owner of the property had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ( for short "CGRF" only), the order in which was challenged before the Ombudsman and then before the Regulatory Commission. It is after the WPC.No.34908/2015 : 3 : order of the Regulatory Commission on 11.06.2014 that a complaint was filed; is the contention.
3. The wife of the petitioner who is the owner of the property had approached the CGRF by O.P No.42/12-13, the order in which is produced as Ext.P1. Ext.P1 indicates that the petitioner therein had specifically asserted that the petitioner is the title holder of 11 cents of land coming under the Electrical Section, Alappuzha. The CGRF found that the line which was drawn over the property had been in existence for quite a number of years and that there was no objection raised at any point of time by the petitioners. The CGRF found that the Board's action in seeking the letter of consent from the neighbouring WPC.No.34908/2015 : 4 : property owners and the demand for shouldering the cost of such shifting was proper. The CGRF however, found that the existing posts were already damaged and required replacement and hence the money required for such replacement would not be charged on the property owner.
4. An appeal was filed before the Kerala State Electricity Ombudsman, the order in which is produced as Ext.P2. The Ombudsman found that there was no warrant for the Board to seek a consent of the neighbouring property owners especially since the shifting of line has been sought for, only from one particular land, which could be effected without disturbing the entire stretch. The Ombudsman appointed an expert commission and on that WPC.No.34908/2015 : 5 : basis found that the grievance of the petitioner could be redressed by solely shifting the electrical line over the petitioner's property. As per the proposal submitted before the Commission; recommendation was made as is seen from Ext.P2.
5. The wife of the petitioner is said to have challenged that order before the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC) in which further modification was made. Though the order is not produced, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the Commission had directed the Board to bare the expenses under Regulation 95 and the owner of the property be asked to shoulder only the labour charges. A revised WPC.No.34908/2015 : 6 : estimate is also said to have been made as per the Commission's orders directing payment of Rs.27,123/- There is considerable reduction insofar as the original demand made was of Rs.87,698/-.
6. The order of the Commission was on 11.06.2014. It is after the said order that the 1st respondent, the husband of the title holder had approached the Kerala Lok Ayukta. Considering the fact that the title holder had elected to approach the CGRF and also the appellate authorities, as available from the order of that forum, the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Lok Ayukta is found to be bad. In such circumstance there is no requirement to enquire into whether the Lok Ayukta has WPC.No.34908/2015 : 7 : jurisdiction or not. The 1st respondent admitted in his complaint before the Lok Ayukta that the property belongs to his wife. The original title holder having elected another remedy and the same having been finalised, there could be no further grievance agitated on the same count before a different authority. In such circumstance Ext.P5 order is set aside. The complaint initiated before the Lok Ayukta as O.S No.286/2015 is found to be not maintainable in the facts of this case.
The writ petition would stand allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge