High Court of KeralaWP(C)/18832/2015disposed of

K.S.Binu v. Assistant Engineer

2015-06-23Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/2ND ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 18832 of 2015 (D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------------- K.S.BINU, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN, KARAKUNNATH HOUSE, KOLAPRA KARA KUDAYATHUR P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI.

BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------

1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION MOOLAMATTOM - 685 585

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O/O. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION THODUPUZHA - 685 585 BY SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 18832 of 2015 (D) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.3.14. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.3.14. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.6.14. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.4.15. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 9.4.15. EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 18832 OF 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

True it is that there existed a low tension electricity line drawn across the property of the petitioner. The attempt now is to draw a 11KV electricity line along the same route. The petitioner contends that the 11KV electricity line can be drawn along the side of the public road. There is no necessity to dissect the property into two when alternate route along the road side or the boundary of the property exists. 2.

The petitioner relies on the decision in Gopinathan Nair v. KSEB [2015 (2) KLT 947]. The petitioner has in this regard submitted Ext. P4 representation with the second respondent.

I direct the second respondent to consider Ext. P4 representation with notice to the petitioner. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt

W.P.(C). NO. 18832 OF 2015 of a copy of this judgment. The status quo as on today shall be maintained till orders are passed on Ext. P4 representation as directed above.

The writ petition is disposed of.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE