G SUNIL KUMAR Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner contends that the value of his property has been materially diminished (blocking its ingress and egress as well) owing to the erection of a transformer and electric posts. It is however conceded that the transformer and the electric posts have been erected outside his property on the poramboke land on the side of the road. The first prayer in the writ petition is for an expeditious disposal of an application pending with the District Magistrate for shifting the transformer and the electric posts. The second prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Kerala State Electricity Board and its officials to assess the damages and pay compensation.

(2.) The petitioner maintains that the transformer and the electric posts were erected on the poramboke land along side the road notwithstanding his objection evidenced by representations. The suit filed by the petitioner as O.S.No.324/2010 seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction against the erection was admittedly dismissed for default. The District Collector refused to intervene in the erection of the transformer and the electric posts despite the report of the village officer favourable to the petitioner. The petitioner did move the Lok Ayuktha which directed the Kerala State Electricity Board and its officials to take a decision on the request of the petitioner to shift the transformer and the electric posts. But the Assistant Executive Engineer turned down the request of the petitioner on the ground that such shifting would cause substantial drop in the voltage of electricity. It was under these circumstances did the petitioner move the District Magistrate by an application under Section 17(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ['the Act' for short] seeking shifting and compensation.

(3.) I heard Mr.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Sajeev.K.Gopal, Standing Counsel on the behalf of the Kerala State Electricity Board.