IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 193 of 2008() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33313/2007 Dated 13/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------- MADHAVANKUTTY NAIR, EDATTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O.NECHIPUZHOOR, LALAM VILLAGE, VIA PALA. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (PHONES), RAMAPURAM-P.O., RAMAPURAM BAZAAR, PALA. 3. SHRI.P.V.GEORGE, PALATHANATTU PADAVIL, P.O.NECHIPUZHOOR, VIA PALA. 4. THOMAS.P.J., PARAYIL, DO. DO. 5. SAVITHRI AMMA, SUCCESSOR TO KRISHNAN NAIR, KURUNDANATTU HOUSE, DO. DO. 6. JOY THOMAS, AVIMOOTTIL HOUSE DO. DO. 7. THOMAS M.T., MULAKU KODIYANICKAL HOUSE DO. DO. 8. SREEKUMARAN NAIR, 'SURABHI'. DO. DO. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ. -------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No. 193 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant raised objections when telephone line was drawn to the residential premises of respondents 3 to 8 from a post in his property. The above obstruction was removed by first respondent exercising his power under section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act. The above was challenged by the appellant by filing O.P. No.21510 of 1999. It was dismissed and Writ Appeal No.2105 of 2002 was filed. The writ appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, he approached the first respondent suggesting an alternate route. That route was considered by the respondent in detail and that route was rejected. First respondent came to the conclusion that the alternate route suggested by the appellant/petitioner is of 2 k.m. distance and it is not feasible. It is a finding of fact. The learned single Judge found that no grounds are made out for interfering in the above finding of fact and the writ petition was dismissed. The learned single Judge also found that there is no merit in the suggestion made by the appellant/petitioner. W.A.No. 193/2008 2 We fully agree with the view of the learned single Judge. On the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the finding of fact entered by the first respondent need not be interfered by using the extra-ordinary powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India since there is no patent illegality or perverse finding. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge K. Hema Judge vaa W.A.No. 193/2008 3 J.B. KOSHY AND K.HEMA ,JJ. ------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No.193 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:22nd January, 2008