SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11860

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
M.M SHAJI – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43079 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ASWIN P KUMAR
For the Respondents: B. PREMOD, DEVI SHRI R.

Due process requires that property owners be provided a hearing before any decisions affecting their property rights are made by authorities.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a writ petition filed by the petitioner asserting ownership of specific properties and requesting the removal of a High Voltage Electric Line by the respondents, particularly the District Collector, under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules framed under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court found the denial of a hearing opportunity regarding a decision to retain the line as improper and ordered the reconsideration of the matter with notice to the petitioner and a hearing for KSEB. The concluding orders must be executed within two months from receipt of this judgment.

Table of Content
1. property ownership and dispute regarding an electric line. (Para 1 , 2)
2. lack of fair hearing violates due process. (Para 3)
3. court orders reconsideration and due process. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be in absolute ownership and possession of the properties, 16 Ares 19 Sq. Mts. and 20 Ares and 42 Sq. Mts. comprising in Re-sy Block No.14, Re-Sy. No.257/5-2 and 257/8 respectively in Pallivasal Village, Devikulam Taluk in the Revenue District of Idukki, as per Exts.P1 and P2 deeds. It is submitted that both properties are presently separated by a boundary wall constructed by the KSEB.

2. Being aggrieved by the drawing of a High Voltage Electric Line of 33 KV by the Board, the petitioner moved the District Collector with a request to shift the 33 KV Electric Distribution Line outside the property of the petitioner, through Ext.P3 petition, invoking Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules framed under the Electricity Act , 2003.

3. The petitioner complains that Ext.P4 intimation was given by the first respondent without affording an opportunity of hearing and without supplying a copy of the report obtained pursuant to his application. The said contention is not disputed by the respondents by filing a counter-affidavit.

4. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to quash Ext.P4 and direct the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 with notice to the petitioner. The copies of the reports to be relied on by the first respondent shall also be furnished to the petitioner. The KSEB shall also be heard while deciding on Ext.P3. Orders, as directed above, shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the contentions of the parties are left open.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top