Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38471/2016 of JOHN MATHEW Vs KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD on 2 April 2025
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 38471 OF 2016 PETITIONER: JOHN MATHEW AGED 45 YEARS AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. PAUL, SAM NIVAS, CHALAKKAPARA, KANJIRAMATTOM-682 315. BY ADV SRI.T.RAJESH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38471 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
JOHN MATHEW
AGED 45 YEARS
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. PAUL, SAM NIVAS, CHALAKKAPARA,
KANJIRAMATTOM-682 315.
BY ADV SRI.T.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS:
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TRIPOONITHURA-682 301.
THE VIGILANCE ANTI CORRUPTION WING
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
KSEB LIMITED, ELECTRICAL SECTION, AMBALLOOR-682 315.
GANESH
S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBISAN, PUSHPAKAM, CHALAKKAPARA,
SREEKUTTAN
S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBISAN, PUSHPAKAM, CHALAKKAPARA,
KANJIRAMATTOM-682 315.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R., SC, KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BO
G.KEERTHIVAS
SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:29316
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition was filed in the year 2016 seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Call for records in connection with Ext.P1 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.
(ii) Declare that the 4th respondent have no authority to insist or direct petitioner to apply for shifting the electric line.
(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take action against the 4th respondent for issuing Ext.P1 notice and for taking illegal course to suit the convenience of 5th and 6th respondents.
(iv) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Direct the respondent to pay the cost of the proceedings. ”
2. A perusal of the order sheet does not indicate that any interim order was granted to the petitioner. When the matter is called out for consideration today, there is no representation for the petitioner. This Writ Petition will therefore stand dismissed for default. sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE Nsd
2025:KER:29316 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38471/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LOADGED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS DATED 9.11.2016.