Kerala High Court
Leelamany vs Addl. District Magistrate
Author: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/23RD JYAISHTA 1935
WP(C).No. 11293 of 2012 (J)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
LEELAMANY, AGED 48 YEARS
D/O. GANGADHARAN, PARAYAN VILAKATHU VEEDU
KEEZHAIKONAM, NELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VENJARAMOODU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.
3. THAMARAKSHI
MADATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU, POOVANATHUMMOODU, VAMANAPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 11293 of 2012 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXT. P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE S1-77539/12 DATED NIL
EXT. P2 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 13.4.2012
IN WP(C) NO. 9600/12
EXT. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2012
EXT. P4 COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIS
EXT. R3(A) ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED ROUTE OF THE KSEB TO
DRAW ELECTRIC LINE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
Pn
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 11293 of 2012
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2013
JUDGMENT
Exhibit P3 order issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of power vested under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is under challenge. The petitioner objected drawing of electric line to the 3rd respondent's residence, crossing her property. The 2nd respondent had approached the 1st respondent seeking orders for removal of such obstruction. Parties were heard by the 1st respondent. It is stated in Exhibit P3 that the 2nd respondent had suggested that the route proposed is not causing any inconvenience or prejudice to the petitioner and it is the route through which the line can be drawn with least expense. Accepting the submissions made by the 2nd respondent and observing that the 3rd respondent is a poor person, the obstruction was overruled and line was directed to be drawn.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had failed in considering her contentions. According to the petitioner the proposed line will cross her property in a manner causing inconvenience and obstruction W.P.(C). No. 11293 of 2012 -2- for any future constructions. Instead the petitioner had suggested that the line can drawn through boundary of her own property by taking an 'L' shape route. The 3rd respondent had objected the suggestion contending that the route will become more expensive. It is also stated that the original route proposed will not cause much prejudice to the petitioner since the line proposed is only a weather proof line.
3. While considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that the 1st respondent had failed in even adverting to the contentions of the petitioner. It is for the 1st respondent to consider the contentions of the petitioner and to evaluate as to whether drawing of the line will cause prejudice or inconvenience to her. It is for the 1st respondent to consider feasibility of the alternate route suggested. An order passed without considering the above aspects cannot be sustained as a prudent exercise of jurisdiction vested under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Hence I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Exhibit P3 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration W.P.(C). No. 11293 of 2012 -3- and disposal. An appropriate decision shall be taken by the 1st respondent after affording opportunity of further hearing to all the parties concerned, if necessary after conducting a personal inspection at the site. The 1st respondent shall dispose of the matter afresh at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE /True copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn