Kerala High Court
Khadeeja vs Additional District Magistrate on 4 December, 2012
Author: B.P.Ray
Bench: B.P.Ray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/13TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 31181 of 2006 (K)
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------- ------
KHADEEJA, W/O. PEERMOHAMMED,
AGED 53 YEARS, PYARIJAN MANZIL, KUNNATHURMEDU
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
PALAKKAD.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., SULTHANPET
PALAKKAD.
3. B. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. RAVINDRANATH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 14/620(1) ATR STREET
KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER
R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
BY SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
W.P.(C) NO.31181/2006
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD
AND 2ND RESPONDENT.
P2:- COPY OF OS.488/06 FILED AGAINST PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, PALAKKAD.
P3:- COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD.
P4:- COPY OF PLAN ISSUED BY PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY.
P5:- COPY OF ORDER NO.D3.2006/399972/9/K.DIS. DTD. 15.11.2006 PASSED BY the IST
RESPONDENT.
P6:- COPY OF SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
tss
B.P.RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.31181 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. Petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayers challenging Ext.P5 order dated 15-11-2006 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Palakkad directing drawal of electric line to the property of the third respondent as per the proposal submitted by the second respondent:
(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the like nature direction or order quashing Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent declaring that the same is illegal;
(ii) to direct the second respondent not take any steps to draw the electric lines over the property of the petitioner based on Ext.P5.
(iii) to award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioners and
3. Let the petitioner make a representation before the second respondent under Section 17(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act for redressal of his grievance. If such a representation is made within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent shall consider and dispose of the same after making spot verification and after hearing the petitioner and all the affected parties within three months thereafter. It is open to the petitioner to produce all relevant documents and the proposal showing alternative routes along with the representation under Section 17(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
Writ petition is disposed of.
B.P.RAY, JUDGE jes