Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
HEMALATHA M.C. – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32536 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN, SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH, SHRI. RAJ CAROLIN V.
For the Respondents: SHRI.N.SATHEESH, SRI. B. PREMOD, SC, SMT. SURYA BINOY, SR. GP.
The court held that a writ petition becomes infructuous if the main issue is resolved prior to the judgment.
Headnote:This writ petition, WP
(C) No. 32536 of 2019, prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the order No.DCKNR/3728/2019-A6 dated 25.11.2019 and direction for reconsideration of the installation location of a transformer. The court noted that the transformer had not been installed on the petitioner's property, thus rendering the writ petition infructuous. The main issue was whether the installation of the transformer in the specified location was lawful. The court concluded by recording the current status of the installation, leading to the dismissal of the petition as infructuous.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed concerning transformer installation. (Para 1) |
| 2. no transformer erected; petition rendered infructuous. (Para 2) |
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed with the following prayers;
“(i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P3 order No.DCKNR/3728/2019-A6 dated 25.11.2019 and quash the same as illegal by issuing a writ of certiorai. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent not to install the transformer in the property of the petitioner.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the alternate location for installation of the transformer in the property of the petitioner.
(iv) grant such other order that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submits that the transformer has not been erected in the property of the petitioner, but elsewhere. This is recorded.
Accordingly, nothing further remains to be considered in this writ petition and the same is closed as infructuous.
