Alleesh Ouseph v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2010-11-23
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; no merit in the petition.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Alleesh Ouseph

Respondents

The Kerala State Electricity Board
The Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB Electrical Sub Division, Piravom
The Assistant Engineer, KSEB Electrical Sub Division, Piravom

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Abraham P. George

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri. P.P. Thajudeen, SC, K.S.E.B

Case Synopsis & Summary

Alleesh Ouseph, owner of 39 cents in Sy.No.533/2C, Piravom Village, challenged the Kerala State Electricity Board's plan to install a transformer on a public road in front of his property. He filed WP(C) 32426 of 2010 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to install the transformer on the petitioner's land until completion of Ext. P4, a complaint before the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam, and after hearing him. The petition asserted the presence of a newly erected electric post on 13 October 2010 on the road front of the property and argued that the transformer should be shifted to the other side of the road, relying on Ext. P5 showing the post. The respondents argued there was no proposal to install the transformer within the petitioner's land; rather, the transformer would be located on purampokku land outside the petitioner's possession, with only about 2.5 metres of road frontage needed for the stay-wire. They also stated that the plot originally proposed for installation was relocated at the petitioner's request, and that the installation would improve voltage, load management, and system reliability. The court found no merit in the petition, noting that the petitioner had not shown an actual proposal to place the transformer on his property, and that relocation to a non-possessed area made the writ petition untenable. The petition was dismissed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the transformer installation would infringe his property rights by obstructing ingress and egress, was not properly proposed on his land, and should be moved away from his 33-meter road frontage. He relies on Ext. P4 and Ext. P5 to argue that the new post and potential transformer would affect access to his property, and seeks mandamus until Ext. P4 proceedings are concluded and after due hearing. He contends that the board’s actions amount to arbitrary alteration of the road-fronting area and that his ownership and use of the land require protection under the principles of access to the highway and property rights; accordingly, the post should be shifted to the opposite side of the road.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there is no proposal to install the transformer on the petitioner's land; the transformer is proposed to be placed on purampokku land outside the petitioner's possession, with only 2.5 metres of road frontage required for the stay-wire. Previously, pits were dug and later filled; the transformer’s location was relocated at the petitioner's request to accommodate his concerns. They assert that the project is intended to meet load requirements, ensure proper voltage, and improve system reliability, not to invade the petitioner’s property. Since there is no plan to place the transformer on the petitioner’s land, the petitioner’s objection has no legal basis, and his right of ingress/egress cannot block the public utility improvements that benefit the area.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Tanoor Panchayat v. Kunhiamutty	1978 KLT 813	Positive	Cited and followed to support the principle that being owner of adjoining land affords access to the road; the court uses this precedent to argue that the petitioner cannot obstruct or legally challenge the proposed transformer installation, given the lack of a direct proposal to place it on the petitioner's land.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 /2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32426 of 2010 ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S) ----------------- ALLESH OUSEPH, AGED 85, PANDIYAMAKKIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKKARA, MULAKKULAM PANCHAYATH, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV.SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PIRAVOM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## W.P.(C).32426/2010 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: - P1:THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT NO.4694432 BOOK NO.46945 OF PIRAVOM VILLAGE DATED 7.4.2010 SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF TAX. P2:THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WILL EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. - P3:THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.10.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - P4:THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT WITH THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. - P5:THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NEWLY ERECTED ELECTRIC POST AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: - ANNEXURE I-PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.9.2009 FILED BY THE RESIDENTS OF MAMPURAM AREA. - ANNEXURE-II-PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION DATED 25.6.2010 OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELE.DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA. - ANNEXURE-III-A DETAILED SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF TRANSFORMER SUGGESTED BY THE K.S.E.BOARD. - ANNEXURE IV-A DETAILED SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF TRANSFORMER SUGGESTED BY THE K.S.E.BOARD. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------W.P.(C). No..32426 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------** Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 39 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.533/2C of Piravom Village. This Writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second and third respondents not to install the transformer in front of (at the southern side) of the petitioner's property till the final disposal of Ext.P4 complaint pending before the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the above matter. 2. A factual scanning of the writ petition would undoubtedly reveal the absolute absence of any contention or even an apprehension, of existence of a proposal or any attempt on the part of the respondents to draw the electric line under, over, along or across the immovable property belonging to the petitioner. So also, there is no allegation that the respondents are attempting to erect any post or **W.P.(C) No.32426/2010** 2 even a stay wire in the aforesaid property belonging to the petitioner. The specific averment is that the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents have erected an electric post on 13.10.2010 on the road front of his property, on the side of a public road. The precise position of the post is evident from Ext.P5 photograph. The cream of his contentions is that the said post erected with a view to install a transformer should be shifted to the other side of the road. Ext.P4 has been filed for the purpose. But, no action was taken thereon. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. The respondents have filed a statement in this writ petition. It is stated therein that in order to meet the load in exigencies by back feeding arrangements and to ensure proper voltage and system reliability, it has been decided to install the transformer outside the above mentioned property and in the purampokku land which is not in possession of the petitioner. It is further stated therein that the property of the petitioner is having 33 metres road frontage out of which only 2.5 metres is required for the installation of the transformer. It is also stated thereunder that earlier they have dug certain pits in the road frontage and subsequently, they are filled and **W.P.(C) No.32426/2010** 3 the position for installation of the transformer was relocated to the extreme corner of the plot considering the request of the petitioner. It is thus obvious from the rival contentions that there is no proposal at all for the authorities to install transformer in the immovable property belonging to the petitioner. A perusal of the contentions raised in this writ petition would also reveal the same. The petitioner did not have a case that the respondents are proposing to install the transformer in his immovable property. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot legally raise objection or cause any obstruction to the above proposal. When faced with such a situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in such a case, going by the decision of this Court in **Tanoor Panchayat v. Kunhiamutty** reported in _**1978 KLT 813,**_ being the owner of an adjoining land, the petitioner has access to the high way. There is no doubt that being the owner of adjoining land, the petitioner is having access to the road and the free ingress and egress of the property cannot be restricted in any manner by the respondents. In this context, it is to be noted that the property of the petitioner is having a road frontage of about 33 meters and 5 **W.P.(C) No.32426/2010** 4 metres required for installation of the stay wire. That apart, it is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the plot which was originally proposed for installation of the transformer was relocated at the request of the petitioner. The petitioner did not have a case that installation of the transformer in the proposed location will, in any manner, affect the ingress and egress to his property. Therefore, I am of the view that relying on the decision referred above, the petitioner cannot legally raise any objection against the installation of the transformer as proposed by the respondents. Evidently, the respondents have proposed to install the transformer to ensure proper voltage and system reliability in the area concerned. Ultimately, the petitioner will also be benefited by the installation of the same. The right of the petitioner will not be infringed by the installation of the transformer in the proposed location. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** ## **spc** **W.P.(C) No.32426/2010** 5 **W.P.(C) No.32426/2010** 6