Kerala High Court
Varghese Andrews vs Additional District Magistrate on 4 September, 2012
Author: V. Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/12TH MAGHA 1934
WP(C).No. 21661 of 2012 (G)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
1. VARGHESE ANDREWS, S/O.ANDREWS,
AGED 57 YEARS, CHAKKUMMOOTTUMALIYIL,
PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. A.S. NARAYANAN,
PADINJARE KUTTOTHUMALIYIL,
PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
3. K.N. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, SHIBU VILLA,
PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
4. V.J. JOSE, VALUPARAMBIL,
PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
5. JOSE P.KUNJU, VETTIKODE HOUSE,
PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
6. K.P. BABU, KOTTIPALLY,
PARAMBUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM- 686 502.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM EAST, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTTAYAM EAST, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
4. JYOTHI V. ABRAHAM,
VALANJAR, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.M. SANEER.
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSEB.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 21661 of 2012 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT-P1 - THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE EXISTING LINE
AND THE PROPOSED ROUTE AFTER SHIFTING.
EXHIBIT-P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.42831/2011/HI DATED 04/09/2012
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC.18826/2010,
25745/2010 AND WPC.24493/2010 MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P3 ORDER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
V. CHITAMBARESH, J
--------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 21661 OF 2012
------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2013
JUDGMENT
The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short) thought it fit to shift the electricity supply line drawn over the property of the fourth respondent beneficiary. The fourth respondent wanted to construct a house in his residential plot and the electricity supply line remained as an impediment. The KSEB found out an alternate route along a public road vested in the panchayat whereby the electricity supply line would not cross any private property.
2. The petitioners who own property on either sides of the panchayat road moved the first respondent Additional District Magistrate under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Section 17 applies only when the electricity supply line is sought to be shifted from one place to another within the boundary of the same property. Obviously Ext.P2 objection filed by the petitioners purportedly under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act was wholly misconceived. The same has rightly been 2 WP(C) No. 21661/2012 dismissed by the first respondent Additional District Magistrate by Ext.P3 order.
3. The petitioners can have a grievance only if the route now proposed cross anyone of their property. The fact that the lines are now proposed to be drawn along the side of a public road is also not disputed. The KSEB assures this court that line will be drawn only after obtaining the formal permission of the panchayat under Section 10 (c) of the Indian Telegraph Act. I am at a loss to understand as to how the petitioners could object to the drawing of electricity supply line over a panchayat road.
4. The Standing Counsel for the KSEB points out that a mass petition dated 15.01.2011 had been received by the third respondent Assistant Engineer to draw the electricity supply line along the public road. It is also stated that petitioners 1 to 3 are signatories to the mass petition and that an 'Electricity Janakeeya Adalath' was convened thereafter on 31.01.2011. It was decided to shift the electricity supply line over the private property to the place of the beneficiary along the public road. 3 WP(C) No. 21661/2012
5. The decisions cited by the petitioners in Moidu Vs. District Magistrate [1998 (1) KLT 442] and Narayanan Nair and another Vs. R. Kunjikrishnan Nair and others [2009 (2) KHC 941] are totally out of place. The same deal with the scope and ambit of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act. I have already held that Section 17 cannot be called in aid by the petitioner as was done in Ext.P2 objection. The first respondent Additional District Magistrate cannot be faulted with in dismissing Ext.P2 objection by Ext.P3 order. There is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I dismiss the Writ Petition. No costs.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd