IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
C.V. HUSSAIN – Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KANNUR – Respondent
The key points from the provided legal document are as follows:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) and sought the removal of an electric line drawn by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) that allegedly deviated from the directives issued by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (!) (!) .
The ADM’s order explicitly directed that the electric line should be shifted through a private road owned by Sri. Kasim M.K., and did not authorize drawing the line through the petitioner’s property. It was noted that KSEB officials deviated from this order by drawing the line through the petitioner’s property, which was not a party to the original case (!) (!) .
The ADM’s order, issued under the Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Telegraph Act, was clear in its instructions not to draw the electric line through the petitioner’s property. The respondent (KSEB) acknowledged that the order was specific and that the deviation was a violation of the directives (!) .
The Court directed the Additional District Magistrate to ensure the implementation of the original order (Ext.P2) by instructing the KSEB accordingly, and to take necessary steps to rectify the deviation. The expenses for such rectification were to be borne by the KSEB, as it was found to have flouted the original directives (!) (!) .
The writ petition was allowed, emphasizing the importance of compliance with lawful orders issued under the relevant statutes to ensure proper adherence to the directives (!) .
The Court’s decision underscores the obligation of authorities and service providers to follow judicial and administrative directives strictly, especially those issued under the Indian Electricity Act and related legislation, to prevent unauthorized or improper infrastructure work.
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 i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.