NASEEMA SAIFI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court contending that the respondent Board, notwithstanding the specific direction given by the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam, vide Ext.P5 to relocate the transformer to a pragmatic distance away from the front side of the property of the petitioner and also to lift the transformer by one foot from the present position, has attempted to have it watered down. THEy are hasty steps to have installed the transformer at the place as originally proposed and in front of the premises of the petitioner, which in turn is sought to be intercepted in this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was dispute with regard to the location of the site and installation of the transformer. Pursuant to the dispute raised by the petitioner, the matter was caused to be referred to the decision of the Additional District Magistrate, Eranakulam. After hearing all the parties concerned, the Additional District Magistrate, as per Ext.P5 order dated 06.08.2012, passed the order in the following terms: