The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i) to call for the records leading to Exhibit P2 and declare that the respondents are not entitled to erect transformer in front of the property of the petitioner covered by Exhibit P1 affecting vehicular ingress and egress to the property and also without following procedures and conditions of law.
ii) to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to erect and energise transformer in front of the petitioner's property covered by Exhibit P1 by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order;
iii) Alternatively to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to dispose of Exhibit P2 expeditiously after hearing the petitioner and to direct them to keep the erection of transformer in front of the petitioner's property covered by Exhibit P1 in abeyance till disposal of Exhibit P2 by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order ;
iv) to mould and issue any other writ or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case which this Hon'ble Court deems just and necessary.”
2. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to installation of a transformer which, according to the petitioner, will bar the access to the petitioner's property and hence the challenge. The petitioner also contends that, this Court came across a fact that the line was proceeding through the opposite side of the road, whereas the transformer is sought to be erected on the opposite side, in front of the petitioner's property. In the said circumstance, explanation of the respondent Board was sought for, particularly in the light of the factual position revealed from the photographs produced from the part of the petitioner.
3. The respondent Board has also filed a counter affidavit pointing out the facts and figures. It is stated that the transformer was sought to be erected at the premises for meeting the necessary power requirements, particularly in connection with the application preferred for giving a service connection to a Mobile Tower. The transformer was sought to be erected on the side of Nellamkandy-Anappara PWD Road. The estimate of Rs.6,64,631/- was sanctioned and due payment was effected by the consumer. The transformer was sought to be erected on the side of 8 metre wide PWD road at a distance of 1.5 metre from the boundary of the petitioner's property and the property belonging to one Moideen K.K.. It is further stated that the most technically feasible site for installation of the Transformer was in front of the petitioner's property , as the PWD Road was having the maximum width at that point, after leaving gap on the side road beyond the tarred area. The petitioner made a request to shift the transformer to the side of the road and to the corner of his property. It was accordingly, that the present location was selected for erecting the transformer. It is also pointed out that the property on the other side of the road is lying at a height of 2.5 metre above road level and if the transformer is to be installed there, it will not be possible to maintain the statutory height in connection with the installation. It was also pointed out that, no trees were cut down and removed from the property of the petitioner and hence there was no loss or safety issues. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the requirement of the consumer at whose instance the transformer is sought to be erected is only 15 KVA; whereas the capacity of the Transformer is 100 KVA, which will be beneficial for the general public in the locality.
4. In the course of further proceedings, particularly after filing the reply affidavit and other incidental proceedings, the Board has also filed an additional counter affidavit. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“4. It is respectfully submitted that on the opposite side of the road, the private property is at a height of about 2.5 meters above the road level and if the transformer is installed there the statutory clearance of the 11 KV line and equipments from the ground level of the property cannot be maintained.
5. It is submitted that while installing the DP at this location , no building or trees in the property of the petitioner will be affected. For installing the DP at the present location one yielding coconut tree was already cut and removed from the property of Sri Moideen. He had also given permission to erect the stay for the PSC pole on his property. Moreover, on the side of Nellamkandy-Anappara Road, near to the load centre, for erecting transformer there is no other suitable location. Hence the location where the DP is presently erected is the most suitable, technically and economically feasible location to install the transformer.”
After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to call for interference. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk