Kerala High Court
Naseema Saifi vs State Of Kerala
Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/16TH BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 20809 of 2012 (A)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
NASEEMA SAIFI, AGED 28 YEARS
W/O.MR.MUHAMEMED SAIFI, KOYALIPARAMBIL HOUSE
WARD 13, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.BALAN
SRI.B.JAYABAL
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF POWER GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, PATTOM
TRIVANDRUM-695001.
2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM--695001.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
KSEB, ERNAKULAM-682031.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, VYPIN
MALIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682511.
5. EDAVANAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE
EDAVANAKKAD P.O., VYPIN, ERNAKULAM-682502.
BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 20809 of 2012 (A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 2-9-08 GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO R5.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ERNAKULAM
DATED 30-10-08.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30-10-08 FILED BY THE
HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, NJARAKKAL.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 13-11-2011 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM DATED 6-8-2012.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION AND PLAN DATED 24-
8-12 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R5.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
ds
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No. 20809 OF 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 07th day of September, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court contending that the respondent Board, notwithstanding the specific direction given by the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam, vide Ext.P5 to relocate the transformer to a pragmatic distance away from the front side of the property of the petitioner and also to lift the transformer by one foot from the present position, has attempted to have it watered down. They are hasty steps to have installed the transformer at the place as originally proposed and in front of the premises of the petitioner, which in turn is sought to be intercepted in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was dispute with regard to the location of the site and installation of the transformer. Pursuant to the dispute raised by the petitioner, the matter was caused to be W.P(C)No. 20809/2012 -2- referred to the decision of the Additional District Magistrate, Eranakulam. After hearing all the parties concerned, the Additional District Magistrate, as per Ext.P5 order dated 06.08.2012, passed the order in the following terms:
"The site proposed by the Petitioner for installing the transformer is seen feasible. Sanction is hereby accorded to install 100 KVA transformer in the proposed site in public road with the following modifications. The position of transformer shall be relocated to a pragmatic distance away from the front side of the property of the 1st respondent towards the property of the 3rd respondent and also lift the transformer by 1 foot from the present position."
The petitioner is apprehending that the specific direction to have the transformer shifted and relocated as per Ext. P5 will be given a 'go-bye', by the Board; which made her to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. The learned standing counsel for Board submits on instructions that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the writ petition, in so far as, no basis for the apprehension W.P(C)No. 20809/2012 -3- is projected with reference to any tangible material. The learned standing counsel further submits that Ext. P5 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate is not intended to be challenged and that earnest efforts are being taken to give effect to the same. It is also asserted from the part of the Board that the transformer will be relocated to a pragmatic distance away from the front side of the property of the petitioner as ordered and also lifting the same by one foot from the present position/level.
The above submission is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of, as no further orders are necessary.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
ds //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE