IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22841 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- POULOSE, AGED 58, S/O.CHACKO ITTAR, THANDATH HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA, OFFICE OF THE LOK AYUKTA KERALA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKASBHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., MOOVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 3. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, VALAYANCHIRANGARA, KUNNATHNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. NADESAN, VATTAKAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683541. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB FOR R2-3 SC SRI. SATHYANATHA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22841 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.10.09 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 1.6.10 EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.2.10 EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE SIMULTANEOUS SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE BOARD DATED NIL EXT.P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 20.5.11 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).22841/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Fourth respondent applied for an electricity connection. When the lines were attempted to be drawn, petitioner objected on the ground that the lines cannot be drawn over his property. According to the petitioner, he raised the complaint by filing applications before respondents 2 and 3 and that without referring the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, as required under the Telegraph Act, the lines were proposed to be drawn. At that stage, he filed Exts.P2 and P4 complaints before the first respondent and the first respondent has now rejected the complaint as per Ext.P6. It is challenging Ext.P6, the writ petition is filed. 2. Although the petitioner has raised a contention of lack of jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that it is at the petitioner's own instance that proceedings resulting in Ext.P6 were initiated, I am not persuaded to entertain the said plea. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the line has already been drawn and he intends to apply for its W.P.(C).22841/11 2 shifting. In this background the only request now made is that the observation in the impugned order to the effect that “it is not possible to say that electric line was drawn over the property of the complainant merely on the basis of the sketch produced along with the complaint” shall not be of any prejudice to him. A reading of the aforesaid finding shows that the said finding was entered into by the Upa Lok Ayukta on the basis of the materials available before it and therefore, if the petitioner has any further material which shows otherwise, these findings cannot certainly be of any prejudice to him. Clarifying the position as above and leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedy available to him, the writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs