Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
C.V. HUSSAIN – Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KANNUR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 31781 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH, SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU
For the Respondents: SHRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD, SHRI.N.SATHEESH, SMT.MINI V.MENON, SHRI.V.V.BINU, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, SRI.P.VISHNU PRASAD, SRI.B.PREMOD, SC
The court emphasizes compliance with statutory directives regarding utility line placements under the Indian Electricity Act, ensuring adherence to prior administrative orders.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum concerning the electric line drawn against prior directives. The Additional District Magistrate's order specifies that the electric line should be relocated through another private property. The Court finds that the Board violated this order. The core issue involves direction compliance under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The court mandates enforcement of the ADM's order to shift the electric line at the Board's expense. The writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF). There is also a prayer for directing the 2nd respondent to remove the existing electric line, which was drawn against the directions in Ext.P2 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM).
2. The ADM has filed a counter affidavit, which reads as follows:
“5. After hearing the petitioner, respondent and beneficiaries [respondent 4 to
6 in the WP (C)] and after site inspection, an order under Indian Electricity Act , 2003 was passed directing the KSEB to shift the LT line through the private road owned by Sri.Kasim M.K., the respondent in the petition. The writ petitioner was not a party in that case. The order of the Additional District Magistrate does not suggest drawing of the line through the property of the writ petitioner. KSEB officials deviated from the order and drew line through the property of the petitioner.
6. It is submitted that Additional District Magistrate's order dated 04.02.2014 No.A6/472/2014 is specific with an order to KSEB to shift the existing electric line through the private road owned by Sri.Kassim M.K. Magisterial order is crystal clear in its intention. Exhibit P2 order does not suggest drawing of line through the property of the writ petitioner. He was not a party in that case.
7. It is submitted that the Additional District Magistrate's order under Indian Telegraph Act and Electricity Act does not permit drawing of line through the property of the petitioner. The order is clear in its letter and spirit.
8. It is submitted that this respondent has no objection to consider the grievance of the writ petitioner if the Hon'ble Court permits under Indian Telegraph Act and Electricity Act.”
3. The above statements are recorded.
4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent –
Additional District Magistrate to take such steps to see that Ext.P2 order passed by the ADM on 04.06.2014 is implemented as such by giving appropriate directions to the KSEB and others, if required. The expenses for the same shall be bound by the Board itself, as the affidavit filed clearly shows that the Board had flouted the directions issued by the ADM, which it was bound by. Appropriate orders as directed above shall be passed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
