P.R.Krishna Kumar Vs. K.S.E.B.

P.R.Krishna Kumar vs K.S.E.B.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 18, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1014573

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1014573
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh
Decided On: Jan 18, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.R.Krishna Kumar

Respondent

K.S.E.B.

Excerpt

.....permission by the third respondent to draw electricity supply line is under challenge in this petition. the third respondent in exercises of the jurisdiction vested in him under section 16 of the indian telegraph act has chosen the most feasible route. there already exists a single phase line across the property of the petitioner which is sought to be converted into a three phase line. only the area beyond the property of the petitioner is sought to be utilised for erecting new posts and drawing three phase line.2. a reference to ext.p2 sketch as well as the sketch produced by the kerala state electricity board reveals that the area beyond the property of the petitioner is a road. no fresh posts are to be erected in the property of the petitioner and fresh post are to be erected only on the road. added to this is the fact that the three phase line has already been drawn during the pendency of the writ petition . all technical aspects have been w.p.(c) no.18397 o”2. taken into consideration by the third respondent in chosing the route to draw electricity supply lines by converting the existing single phase line into a three phase line over the major portion.3. ext.p1 order of the third respondent does not suffer from any infirmity in law as to warrant interference is this jurisdiction. the writ petition (civil) fails and is dismissed. v.chitambaresh. judge smm w.p.(c) no.18397 of 2012 3

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 22ND SRAVANA 193 WP(C).No. 18397 of 2012 (Y) --------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- P.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O. LATE RAMA WARRIER, AGED 6 YEARS, MANAGING TRUSTEE, KSHETROPASANA TRUST, JNANANDA ASRAMAM, KONDAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHY BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KUNDANNOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680590 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THRISSUR - 680001 4. SRI. BIJU T NAIR INDUS TOWERS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682025 5. SRI. GOPALAN NAIR NAMBETH HOUSE, KONDAYUR, DESAMANGALAM THRISSUR DISTRICT - 679532 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K. GOPAL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 18397 of 2012 (Y) -2- JUDGMENT None appears. Dismissed for non-prosecution. 13/08/2012 SD/- B.P.RAY, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.18397 of 2012 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 18th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT

Ext.P9 order granting permission by the third respondent to draw electricity supply line is under challenge in this petition. The third respondent in exercises of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act has chosen the most feasible route. There already exists a single phase line across the property of the petitioner which is sought to be converted into a three phase line. Only the area beyond the property of the petitioner is sought to be utilised for erecting new posts and drawing three phase line.

2. A reference to Ext.P2 sketch as well as the sketch produced by the Kerala State Electricity Board reveals that the area beyond the property of the petitioner is a road. No fresh posts are to be erected in the property of the petitioner and fresh post are to be erected only on the road. Added to this is the fact that the three phase line has already been drawn during the pendency of the writ petition . All technical aspects have been W.P.(C) No.18397 o”

2. taken into consideration by the third respondent in chosing the route to draw electricity supply lines by converting the existing single phase line into a three phase line over the major portion.

3. Ext.P1 order of the third respondent does not suffer from any infirmity in law as to warrant interference is this jurisdiction. The Writ Petition (Civil) fails and is dismissed. V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE smm W.P.(C) No.18397 of 2012 3

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties P.R.Krishna Kumar vs K.S.E.B. Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh