The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :
i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to remove the transformer erected in front of the petitioner's property;
ii) To award cost of these proceedings to the petitioner; and
iii) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
2. The grievance of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that a transformer is sought to be installed in front of the premises of the petitioner, which is virtually denying proper access to the property belonging to the petitioner and hence the challenge. It is also stated that the transformer was originally intended to be planted at some other place near Chetty temple. But the same came to be installed in front of the property of the petitioner at the instance of somebody else.
3. The allegations levelled against the respondent have been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Board. The factual particulars given therein, particularly in Paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 are relevant, which read as follows :
“3. The transformer is erected beside the Panchayath road and outside the petitioner's property, at a point straight to the common boundary of the property mentioned by the petitioner and Late Sri. Kunhappan's property. The transformer installed is not a hindrance for entering to the petitioner's property as it is erected 9 meter away from the gate of the petitioner's property. The said transformer is erected under system improvement scheme, as a part of normal development of the Board, for rectifying the low voltage problem in the area at North Manakkad - towards Chetti temple. For the satisfaction of the above work Administrative sanction was issued by the 3rd respondent as A.S. No. 10/2013-14 dated 01.11.2013 and Technical sanction was given by the 4th respondent vide T.S. No. 15/13- 14 dated 01.12.2013. These respondents discharged their duties, to supply uninterrupted energy at stipulated voltage, as authorized by the Board. The work was executed as per the above sanction by keeping all the constructions standards. After completion of the above work, necessary approval was obtained from the electrical inspectorate, for ensuring all statutory safety clearances before energisation of transformer.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner neither lodged a complaint before the 4th respondent at Electrical Section, Karivellur nor contacted over phone before energisation of transformer 04.07.2014. It is admitted that the petitioner sent a petition to the 2nd respondent at the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer at Sreekandapuram. The copy of the letter endorsed from the office of the 2nd respondent was received on 05.07.2014 and its report was submitted vide letter No. GB/Complaint/14- 15/16 dated 19.07.2014. Subsequently, reply to the petition was issued by the 2nd respondent vide letter No. DCE/SKM/TSI/Complaint/2014-15/802 dated 12.08.2014. Meanwhile, the official of Electrical inspectorate conducted inspection of the transformer and line on 03.07.2014 and after obtaining necessary approval by ensuring the statutory clearance, the transformer was charged by the 4th respondent on 04.07.2014. After that on 09.07.2014, the petitioner's husband submitted an application, under the Right to Information Act 2003 in the office of the 4th respondent seeking information with regard to sanction of the transformer work and its reply was given on 11.07.2014. Subsequently one application under Right to Information Act 2003 received on 21.07.2014 from the petitioner's husband in the office of the 3rd respondent and another from petitioner on 01.08.2014 in the office of the 4th respondent. All the requested information regarding sanctioned estimate, location map of transformer etc, were timely given to the petitioner and her husband. Hence there is no lapse on the part of these respondents to issue reply and provide all the required information regarding the installation of work.
7. It is submitted that large number of complaints were received from the North Manakkad - Chetti temple area about the low voltage and frequent supply interruption. More over the same low voltage problem was discussed in the Local Advisory Meeting convened at Karivellur Grama Panchayath on 29.08.2013. :Local Advisory Committee is a group, where Assistant Engineer is the convener and local body president as chairman and all elected local body members as members to discuss various issues regarding electricity. Board, as a statutory body is bound by provision of the Electricity Act 2003 to supply interrupted energy at stipulated voltage and investigation for the voltage improvement was conducted and after studying the technical feasibility, a work proposal was sanctioned under system improvement for extending 378 meter 11 kv line from North Manakkad transformer along panchayath road towards Chetti temple and installing one 100 KVA trasformer, and the work was scheduled to be execute in normal development scheme of the KSE Board for rectifying the low voltage problem in the said area. While naming the transformer utmost care should be taken to avoid confusion in the name and location of transformer. The proposed transformer is 378 meter away from the existing 'North Manakkad' Transformer and is located near Chetti temple road at North Manakkad. Chetti temple is around 500 meter away from the proposed transformer and hence in order to avoid confusion in the name of two transformer at the same area, the newly proposed transformer is named as 'Chetti Temple transformer, being the important landmark. The petitioner's averment that the transformer was intended to be installed at the premieses of Chetti temple is incorrect since Chetti temple is an end consumer at this area and is not technically feasible to propose a transformer in the premise of an end consumer under system improvement scheme which is fully funded by KSEB Ltd. The sanctioned line and transformer is the most economical and technically feasible and no deviation is made from the estimate.
In spite of granting three adjournments, the petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit rebutting the averments in the counter affidavit.
After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to call for interference. No valid or tenable ground has been raised to have any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)