Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

H.VIJAYAKUMAR, PARANATHUKARI VEEDU versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


H.VIJAYAKUMAR, PARANATHUKARI VEEDU v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 23308 of 2006(Y) [2006] RD-KL 3436 (14 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23308 of 2006(Y)

1. H.VIJAYAKUMAR, PARANATHUKARI VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, NEYYATTINKARA

3. LALITHA, W/O.BALARAJ,

4. MOHANDAS, S/O.DASAN NADAR,

5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.KRISHNAN

For Respondent :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :14/12/2006

O R D E R

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 23308 of 2006 Dated this 14th day of December, 2006

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Municipality and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Councilor submits that the proposal is to draw electric line over the public pathway only. Sri.A.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposal is to draw line over the property belonging to the petitioner. Sri.Jose J.Matheikel, the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board would submit that if it becomes necessary to draw lines over the property belonging to the petitioner or the property over which the petitioner has claim of ownership or possession, it will be necessary to proceed with the matter in accordance with the Indian Electricity and Telegraph Act and refer the issue to the District Magistrate concerned. Under these circumstances, this writ petition will stand disposed of with the following directions: If the 5th respondent finds on his inspection of the properties that it is necessary to draw the proposed electricity WPC No.23308/2006 2 line through any property belonging to the petitioner or the property over which the petitioner has claim of ownership or possession, the 5th respondent will have to proceed with the matter according to the provisions of Indian Electricity and Telegraph Act. This will be done by the 5th respondent after conducting inspection at his earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. It is needless to mention that if the inspection reveals that the lines will have to drawn only through the public pathway, it will not be necessary to refer the matter. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits that there is no proposal to widen the pathway. Line is gong to be drawn draw only over the existing pathway. The above submissions are recorded. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge dpk


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.