IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15672 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. K.P.MUHAMMED ISMAIL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, VAKHANIL, ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. HAJI.P.H.RASHEED, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN RAWTHER, PUTHENVEEDU, ERUMELI P.O. 3. P.H.ABDUL SHUKOOR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN RAWTHER, PUTHENVEEDU, ERUMELI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERUMELI. 3. THE VICAR, FERONA CHURCH, ERUMELI. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15672 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are aggrieved by the proposal to draw an electric line to the premises of the 3rd respondent through their property. It is stated that coming to know of the said proposal, they filed Ext.P3 objection before the 1st respondent and that despite having raised the objections, without referring the matter to the Additional District Magistrate as required under the Indian Telegraph Act, steps are being taken to draw the line. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel on instruction submits that although objections have been received, the matter is yet to be referred to the Additional District Magistrate. He also accepts that in view of the objection raised by the petitioners, the matter needs to be referred. 3. Taking into account the submissions so made by the standing counsel for the respondents, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. (1) That the dispute in relation to the drawing of line to the WPC 15672/09 :2 : 3rd respondent's premises shall be referred to the Additional District Magistrate concerned, as required under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. (2) It is also directed that until the Additional District Magistrate passes an order as required in the said Act, further proceedings to draw the line to the premises of the 3rd respondent through the properties of the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance. (3) Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp