Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Ajith Kumar vs Asst. Executive Engineer

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 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/6TH ASWINA 1934

                                 WP(C).No. 22638 of 2012 (D)
                                     ---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------------
             AJITH KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS
             S/O SUNDARESAN, CHRISTHAV, NEDUMPA
             PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS:
----------------------
          1. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
             KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION
             NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695561.

          2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
             KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
             CHULLIMANOOR ELECTRICAL SECTION, NEDUMANGAD
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695561.

          3. BHARATHI,
             D/O KUNJI, COLONY VEEDU, NEDUMPA
             PANAYAMUTOM P.O, NEDUMPRA, PANAYAMUTTOM P.O.
             NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695561.

          4. MOLY,
             D/O LEELA, COLONY VEEDU, NEDUMPA
             PANAYAMUTTOM P.O. NEDUMANGAD
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695561.

          5. SHEEJA,
             D/O RAMANI, COLONY VEEDU, NEDUMPA
             PANAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEDUMANGAD
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695561.

          6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695561.

             R BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
             R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.J.RAJASREE

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BP

WP(C).No. 22638 of 2012 (D)


                                 APPENDIX



PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :


EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.956/2011 OF MUNSIF COURT,
            NEDUMANGAD.

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY FO THE COMMISSION REPORT IN EXT P1.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.446/2012 OF MUNSIF COIURT,
            NEDUMANGAD.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN EXT P2.

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.9.12.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

                                                    //TRUE COPY//


                                                    P.A. TO JUDGE
BP



                P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ---------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) NO.22638 of 2012 (D)
              ----------------------------------------
         Dated this the 28th day of September, 2012

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioenr has approached this Court with the following prayers :

1. Call for the entire records relating to drawing of new electric line over the property of the petitioner in Re Sy No.420/9-1 of Panavoor Village from the respondents 1 and 2.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to draw electric line over the property of the petitioner in Re Sy No.420/9-1 of Panavoor Village of Nedumangad Taluk without obtaining permission from the 6 th respondent.
3. In the alternate issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction to the 1st respondent to dispose the Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before drawing electric line over the property in Re Sy No.420/9-1 of Panavoor Village,
4. Such other relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit to render justice to the petitioner.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submits that, there is no objection with regard to the direction to be given, as sought for vide prayer No.3. Considering the said W.P.(C) NO.22638 of 2012 (D) 2 prayer and also after hearing both the sides as above, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondents 3 to 5 for the time being.

In the said circumstance, first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

'Status quo' shall be maintained till such time.

sd/-

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE AMV