Kerala High Court
Abdul Azeez vs Additional District Magistrate on 8 November, 2011
Author: B.P.Ray
Bench: B.P.Ray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/25TH PHALGUNA 1933
WP(C).No. 31838 of 2011 (D)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
ABDUL AZEEZ,
PALIYATHAZHATH HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA P.O.
IIND/220 VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, COCHIN.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
SMT.R.RAJITHA
SRI.P.P.HARIS
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
THRISSUR-680001.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KATTOOR.
THRISSUR-680001.
3. OMANA JACOB, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE,
PAZHUVIL P.O., THRISSUR-680001.
4. HEMA VIJAYAN, PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PAZHUVIL P.O., THRISSUR-680001.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, A.V.ELIAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SU/-
WP(C).No. 31838 of 2011 (D)
--2---
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 8-11-2011.
P2: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
P3: COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
P4: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED LINE AND THE
ALTERNATE LINE SUGGESTED BY THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
SU/-
B.P.RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.C.No.31838 of 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15 th day of March, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the permission given by the first respondent for drawing electric line to the house of 3rd and 4th respondents through the property of the petitioner without considering more feasible and alternate method shown by the petitioner. Petitioner's case is that a civil suit is pending before the competent civil court. In the event the petitioner wins, the disputed pathway will be in the petitioner's property.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is a pathway through the property of the petitioner and is being used by the respondents 3 and 4 and four other families as the pathway to their properties. The said pathway has sufficient space to draw the line through it and it will not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner. The strip of land on the eastern side of the W.P.C.No.31838 of 2011 -2- property is not fully owned by the petitioner and hence he has no authority to give consent for drawing electric line through it. Moreover, it is a part of kole land and the line construction through this land is not easy and feasible.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the petitioner wins the civil suit, the pathway will be used as the own property of the petitioner. But the first respondent, Additional District Magistrate did not interfere with the dispute of the pathway but he has only taken into consideration the convenience of the petitioner and the 3rd and 4th respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the posts were already erected and because of the interim order passed by this Court, the line has not been drawn to the premises of the 3rd and 4th respondents.
W.P.C.No.31838 of 2011 -3-
5. In view of the above facts, I do not wants to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is made clear that in the event the petitioner wins the civil suit, he can apply under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraphs Act for the removal of the electric lines.
Writ petition is dismissed.
B.P.RAY, JUDGE su/-