Kerala High Court
K.U.Abdul Rahim vs District Collector on 20 December, 2019
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(C).No.35236 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
K.U.ABDUL RAHIM
AGED 57 YEARS
KOTHAKULATHIL VEETIL, P.O.VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-683 556.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNKAULAM
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN-682 030.
2 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 030.
3 ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
ELECTRICAL SECTION, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683
556.
SC A. ARUNKUMAR., GP PRIYA SHANAVAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.35236 OF 2019
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. A direction to the 3rd respondent to dismantle the line already drawn over the residential property of the petitioner connecting post A to post B in Exhibit P4 sketch and to draw the line along the PP road.
2. A direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P2 complaint submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.
3. A declaration to the effect that in view of the mandatory direction in rule 3(1) (a) of Works of Licensees Rules 2006 framed under Electricity Act 2003 the action of the 3 rd respondent in having drawn the electric line over the property of the petitioner without his prior permission and despite the A1 objection submitted by him is illegal and arbitrary and ab- initio void."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though Ext.P2 complaint had been submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent as early as on WP(C).No.35236 OF 2019 3 28.11.2019 and the issue had been referred by the District Collector to the Assistant Executive Engineer, no steps have been taken to consider the complaint preferred by the petitioner and that the steps have been taken to draw the line without considering Ext.P2.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and I am of the opinion that Ext.P2 request of the petitioner is liable to be considered in accordance with law. There accordingly will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to take up Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders on the same, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent and all effected parties till orders are passed on Ext.P2. Status quo, as on today, shall be maintained by the 3rd respondent.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Bng/20.12.19 WP(C).No.35236 OF 2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSITION OF EXHIBIT P1. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSITION OF EXHIBIT P2. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.12.2019 SENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSITION OF EXHIBIT P3. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SKETCH.