P. V. Ali Mubarak v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd & Others (OP(C) Nos. 1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016)

1 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` OP(C) NO. 1585 OF 2016 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 18/2014 OF ADDITIONAL ``` ``` DISTRICT COURT - II, KALPETTA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1P.V. ALI MUBARAK AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR ,PEEVEES PLANTATION, THOLPETTY, PEEVEES OFFIE, NILAMBOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-679330. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CHEVARAMBALAM CALICUT PIN-673017. ``` ``` 2THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGUALTORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CAHIRMAN, VELLAYAMBALAM. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010 ``` ``` 3THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOADRD LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 004. ``` ``` BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI – R1 ``` ``` SRI.B PRAMOD – STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 AND 1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 1590 OF 2016`** ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 15/2013 OF ADDITIONAL`** ## **`DISTRICT COURT -II, KALPETTA`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` P.V.ALI MUBARAK ``` ``` AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR , PEEVEES PLANTATIONS, THOLPETTY, PEEVEES OFFICE, NILAMBOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679330. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT-673017.` - `2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.` - `3 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.` ``` BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI – R1 ``` ``` SRI.B PRAMOD – STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1593, 1594, 1595 AND 1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 1593 OF 2016 ``` ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 12/2013 OF ADDITIONAL`** ## **`DISTRICT COURT II, KALPETTA`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` P.V.ALI MUBARAK AGED 46 YEARS S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR, PEEVEES PLANTATIONS, THOLPETTY PEEVEES OFFICE, NILAMBOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679330. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT, PIN-673017. 2THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695010. 3THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. ``` ``` BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI – R1 SRI.B PRAMOD – STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1590, 1594, 1595 AND 1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 1594 OF 2016 ``` ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 13/2013 OF ADDITIONAL`** ## **`DISTRICT COURT - II, KALPETTA`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` P.V.ALI MUBARAK ``` ``` AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY,DIRECTOR, PEEVEES PLANTATIONS,THOLPETTY, PEEVEES OFFICE,NILAMBOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 679330. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT, PIN 673017.` - `2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695010.` - `3 THE KERALA STATE ELCTRICITY BOARD LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004.` ``` BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI – R1 ``` ``` SRI.B PRAMOD – STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1590, 1593, 1595 AND 1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 5 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 1595 OF 2016`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 14/2013 OF ADDITIONAL ``` ``` DISTRICT COURT - II, KALPETTA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` P.V.ALI MUBARAK AGED 46 YEARS S/O ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR, PEEVEES PLANTATIONS,THOLPETTY PEEVEES OFFICE, NILAMBOOR P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN:679330. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,CHEVARAMBALAM CALICUT, PIN:673017.` - `2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION` - `REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695010.` - `3 THE KERALA STATE ELECTIRICY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695004.` ``` BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI – R1 ``` ``` SRI.B PRAMOD – STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594 AND 1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 6 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2016`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 19 /2013 OF ADDITIONAL ``` ## **`DISTRICT COURT - II, KALPETTA`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` P.VA.ALI MUBARAK AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR,PEEVEES PLANTATIONS, THOLPETTY, PEEVEES OFFICE, NILAMBOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 679 330. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT, PIN 673 017.` - `2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 010.` - `3 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 004.` ``` BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI – R1 ``` ``` SRI.B PRAMOD – STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594 AND 1595 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P ``` 7 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **---------------------------** **OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,1595 and 1596 of 2016** **----------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of November, 2022.** ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** As the original petitions are between the same parties, they are being disposed of by the common judgment. 2. The original petitions are filed to set aside the orders passed in OP (Electricity) Nos.18/2014, 15/2013, 12/2013, 13/2013, 14/2013 and 19/2014 of the Court of the Additional District Judge-II, Kalpetta (court below). 3. The common case of the petitioner, in brief, relevant for the determination of the original petitions, is: the petitioner is the Director of Peevees Plantations. The plantations is the owner in possession of properties comprised in various survey numbers in Thirunelli Village in Mananthavadi Taluk, Wayanad District. The first respondent is engaged in the 8 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 transmission of power. The second respondent is the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the third respondent is the Kerala State Electricity Board. The first respondent had, in the process of drawing a 400 KV Double circuit line, cut down considerable number of valuable trees standing in the property of the petitioner. As the respondents paid only a meagre amount towards compensation, the petitioner filed the above numbered original petitions before the court below for enhancement of compensation. The first respondent resisted the original petitions, inter alia, contending that the court below has no inherent jurisdiction. The court below, by the impugned Ext P1 order passed in all the above original petitions, dismissed the original petitions holding that it has no jurisdiction, but reserved the liberty of the petitioner to approach the second respondent. Pursuant to Ext P1 order, the petitioner presented petitions before the second respondent, who declined to even accept the 9 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 petitions on file on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. The petitioner is left remediless. Ext P1 orders passed by the court below are erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petitions. 4. Heard; Sri.M.I Johnson, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the original petitions, Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent – Corporation and Sri.B.Pramod, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 5. The question is whether there is any illegality in Ext P1 orders. 6. The court below, by the impugned Ext P1 order, has held that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the original petition after the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003. 7. Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads as follows: 10 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.— (1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them. (2) If, after the making of an order under subsection (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him. (4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall 11 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it. (5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section (3), or sub-section (4) shall be final: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same. 8. A reading of sub-section (3) of Sec.16 of the above Act, unambiguously establishes that in case of any dispute regarding the sufficiency of compensation, the disputing party has to approach the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, and the District Judge is to determine the dispute. 9. In the light of the aforequoted provision, it is the court below who is competent to decide the dispute between the telegraph authority and the affected party. 10. The above position is no longer res integra in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon’ble 12 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 Supreme Court in **Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd.** [2017 KHC 2723] . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in paragraph 26 and 27 held as follows: 26) These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil AppealNo. 10951 of 2016 preferred by the Power Grid by setting aside those directions. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear that if the writ petitioner feels that it is entitled to any compensation, the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before the concerned District Judge for this purpose. It would also be apt to point out at this stage that the Central Government has framed guidelines dated October 15, 2015 in this behalf which inter alia provide that the issue of compensation may be resolved having regard to the mode and manner of assessment of compensation as per the said guidelines. Therefore, it would always be open to the writ petitioner to avail the remedy as per the said guidelines. 27) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8951 OF 2011 - This appeal is filed by Power Grid in the case of Ram Naresh Singh. In this case, transmission lines are in District Sasaram in the State of Bihar. The complete work for laying down the transmission lines where 524 overhead towers have been erected by the Power Grid. Out of these, only 1 tower is located at the land belonging to Ram Naresh Singh. The dispute raised is with regard to quantum of compensation and as per the provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it is to be settled by the District Judge. Thus, for all the reasons given above in the case 13 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 of Century Textiles & Industries Limited, this appeal of the Power Grid stands allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. 11. A similar view has been taken by this Court in **Joseph V.J vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd and others** [2017 KHC 2718] and **Jayaram and others v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram** [2015 (3) KHC 453]. 12. In the light of the clear enunciation of law under Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and its interpretation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the aforecited decisions and a recent decision of this Court in OP (C) No.1229/2020, I am of the definite view that the conclusion arrived at by the court below in Ext P1 orders in all the cases is erroneous and unsustainable in law. As the court below has declined its jurisdiction on an erroneous finding of inherent jurisdiction, I am inclined to allow the original petition, invoking the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 In the result, I allow the original petitions in the following manner: - (i) Ext P1 orders in OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,1595 and 1596 of 2016 are set aside. - (ii) OP (Electricity) Nos.18/2014, 15/2013, 12/2013, 13/2013, 14/2013 and 19/2014 are restored to file. (iii) The Court of the Additional District Judge-II, Kalpetta, is directed to consider and dispose of the OP (Electricity) Nos.18/2014, 15/2013, 12/2013, 13/2013, 14/2013 and 19/2014, in accordance with law. (iv) On a consideration of the fact that the original petitions are of the year 2013 onwards, the court below shall make every endeavour to consider and dispose of the cases, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, on or before 10.4.2023. ## sd/- sks/3.11.2022 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** 15 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1585/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDLE DISTRICT JUDGE KALPATTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL PETITION (ELELCTRICITY) NO.18/2014. P2TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON 19.05.2005. ``` 16 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1590/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDLE DISTRICT JUDGE KALPATTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL PETITION (ELELCTRICITY) NO.15/2013. P2TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON 19.05.2005. ``` 17 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1593/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDLE DISTRICT JUDGE KALPATTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL PETITION (ELELCTRICITY) NO.12/2013. P2TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON 19.05.2005. ``` 18 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1594/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDLE DISTRICT JUDGE KALPATTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL PETITION (ELELCTRICITY) NO.13/2013 P2TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON 19.05.2005. ``` 19 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1595/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE KALPETTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL PETITION (ELECTRICITY) NO.14/2013. EXHIBIT P2:TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON 19.5.2005. ``` 20 OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 and 1596 of 2016 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1596/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.1.15 OF THE HONOURABLE ADDITIOANL DISTRICT JUDGE KALPETTA, WAYANAD, IN ORIGINAL PETITION [ELECTRICITY] NO.19/2014. EXHIBIT P2.TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON 19.5.05. ```