JUDGMENT

(Dated: 1st November, 2022)

Basant Balaji, J.

The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28250 of 2022. He has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:

i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ order or direction, ii) To issue a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction compelling and commanding the respondents to install only Mono Pole Tower in his property, iii) To issue a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction compelling and commanding the respondents not to install Narrow Base Transformer in the property of the petitioner under the guise of Ext.P5, iv) To declare that the petitioner has never consented for erecting Narrow Base Transformer in his property, and v) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.

2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent. He is the owner of 26.6 cents landed property in Thandaper No.39787 of Sakthikulangara Village. The National Highway-66 runs in an east-west direction near the petitioner’s property. The KSEB Tower No.20 is situated on the southern side of the National Highway. Another Tower No.19 situates beyond the petitioner’s property towards the north. The electric lines connecting the above said two towers run straight across the middle portion of the petitioner’s property. Due to the widening of the National Highway, the Electricity Board has proposed to construct a tower in the petitioner’s property as Tower No.20 has to be relocated due to the widening. The petitioner intends to construct a building in his property, and if electric lines are running through the property, the local authority will only give permits to construct a single-storied building, hence he approached this court to quash Ext.P5 letter of the 1st respondent and to the 5th respondent to inspect the place where the tower is to be located and to inform the matter to the office.

3. When relocating the tower to his property came to the petitioner’s knowledge, he submitted a representation before the Minister of Electricity on 26.11.2021. A similar representation was submitted to the 3rd respondent also. Thereafter, he approached this court with W.P.(C)No.14703 of 2022 for a direction to the authorities not to install the KSEB transmission tower in the property of the petitioner and directing the respondents to refer the matter to the District Collector for finding the place judiciously. This Court by Ext.P2 judgment, directed the petitioner to submit a fresh complaint before the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer referred it to the District Magistrate for adjudication of the dispute relating to the same.

4. In accordance with the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.14703 of 2022, the 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner directing him to attend the office for a hearing. Before the hearing, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent heard the petitioner and passed Ext.P5 letter directing the 5th respondent to inspect the place where the tower is to be relocated and decide which of the tower is more convenient and shift the same and thereafter inform the matter to the office. 5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.Rajendran and Sri.Bhairavi S.N, for Adv.Riji Rajendran, Standing Counsel for KSEB/2nd respondent.

6. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Kerala High Court Bar Association. The learned single Judge held that the writ petition is premature as in Ext.P5, the 1st respondent has only directed the 5th respondent to inspect the place and decide which of the tower is more convenient to shift and to inform the office.

7. In the representation filed by the petitioner, it is