Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Rahul Krishnan vs the Electrical Inspector

Rahul Krishnan vs The Electrical Inspector

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 09, 2024
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1321456

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
RP/431/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rahul Krishnan

Respondent

The Electrical Inspector

Excerpt

.....day delivered the following:gopinath p., j.------------------------------------------ r.p.no.431 of 2024 in w.p(c).no.27392 of 2015 ------------------------------------- dated this the 9th day of april, 2024orderthe contention of the petitioner in the review petition appears to be that, if the existing towers supporting the tower line passing over the cattle shed of the petitioner is supported by another tower by maintaining the distance specified in the technical specification for steel pole structure installations in india, the sagging of the tower lines between the existing tower lines can be avoided and the aerial distance can be maintained. this contention, in my view, does not constitute a ground for review. the review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. sd/- gopinath p, judge sbna/ appendix of rp 431/2024 petitioner annexures annexure i a true copy of the interim order dated 10.09.2015 made in w.p.(c).no.27392/2015 annexure ii a true copy of the relevant extract of the regulation 63 of the cea measures relating to safety and electric supply regulations, 2010 annexure iii . a true copy of the photograph of the aerial view of the tower line as well as the cattle shed erected in the petitioner's property annexure iv a true copy of the notice dated 29.02.2024 issued by the 5th respondent addressed to the petitioner

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 RP NO. 431 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.27392 OF 2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: RAHUL KRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. T.N.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, SWAGATH ORGANIC FARM TRADING, EDAPPON, NOORANAD, IRANIKKUZHI PO, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA B.R.SINDU V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR V.ROHITH AFNA V.P. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, THIRUMALA DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDINGS 2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LINE MAINTENANCE SECTION, EDAPPON, PATTOOR PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689501 3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, 4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TRANSMISSION DIVISION, MAVELIKKARA., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101 5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, EDAPPON, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501

OTHER PRESENT: SRI.BINOY DAVIS (GP) SRI B PREMOD, SC KSEB THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

GOPINATH P., J.

------------------------------------------ R.P.No.431 of 2024 in W.P(C).No.27392 of 2015 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2024

ORDER

The contention of the petitioner in the review petition appears to be that, if the existing towers supporting the tower line passing over the cattle shed of the petitioner is supported by another tower by maintaining the distance specified in the technical specification for steel pole structure installations in India, the sagging of the tower lines between the existing tower lines can be avoided and the aerial distance can be maintained. This contention, in my view, does not constitute a ground for review. The Review Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P, JUDGE Sbna/ APPENDIX OF RP 431/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.09.2015 MADE IN W.P.(C).NO.27392/2015 Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGULATION 63 OF THE CEA MEASURES RELATING TO SAFETY AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY REGULATIONS, 2010 Annexure III . A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE TOWER LINE AS WELL AS THE CATTLE SHED ERECTED IN THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Annexure IV A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Rahul Krishnan vs The Electrical Inspector Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales