IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4452 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SRI.G.SADASIVAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN NADAR, RESIDING AT OOTTUKUZHY PUTHEN VEEDU, NO.P.O.XII/219 OF POOVACHAL PANCHAYAT, VEERANKAVU VILLAGE, PANNIYODE.P.O, CHEMBANCODE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.SREEKANTH S.NAIR, MR.K.BABU RAJAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ADDL.DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT.SHEEBA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.SRI.SAMUEL, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MUTTAKKADU, KOVALAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MOHAMMED HASHIM, R2 BY MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B, R3 BY ADVS. MR.D.PEETHAMBARAN, MR.PRASAD GANDHI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4452/2009-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 272/2007 FILED BEFORE THE ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGADU. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH AND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COURT COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO. 272/2004 BEFORE THE LEARNED ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT AT NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 01/09/2005 IN O.S.NO.272/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/11/2006 ISSUED BY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/11/2006 ISSUED BY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 23/02/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 158/2004 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 56/2007 BEFORE THE LEARNED MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGADU. EXT.P.8.A: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH O.S. 56/2007. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/06/08 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF MINISTER'S OFFICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.4452 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The prayer sought in this writ petition is for the implementation of Ext.P6, an order passed by the first respondent exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the resident of a building bearing No.XII/219 of Poovachal Panchayath in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. In 2001 petitioner applied for supply of electricity and as proposal made was to draw line through an alignment running through the property belonging to the father of the 3rd respondent, a suit was filed by the owner of the land as O.S. No.272/04 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Nedumangadu. Ext.P1 is the plaint. On their application, an Advocate commissioner was WP(c).No.4452/09 2 appointed and Ext.P2 report and sketch was submitted. The sketch indicates the existence of a pathway through the northern side of the plaint schedule property. Subsequent to the submission of the report, a memo was filed by the plaintiff reporting that the suit is not pressed and according the the suit was dismissed as not pressed by Ext.P3 judgment. 3. Petitioner submits that once the suit was dismissed, he represented to the authorities reviving his request for supply of electricity. Since the obstruction offered by land owner was continuing, the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board moved the first respondent by application dated 2.1.2006. Meanwhile, the petitioner also submitted Ext.P4 application to the District Collector. The first respondent, to whom the powers of the District Magistrate has been delegated, issued notice to the parties, which included the father of the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent, who in the meanwhile got the property transferred in her favour and others. Parties were heard and a local inspection was also WP(c).No.4452/09 3 held. Finally, Ext.P6 order was passed by the first respondent on 23.2.2007 permitting drawal of the line, after recording the submission of the Board that no damage will be caused to the 3rd respondent. 4. It is stated that subsequently, the 3rd respondent who was also a party to Ext.P6 and who did not challenge Ext.P6, filed O.S.No.56/07 before the Munsiff Court, Nedumangadu praying for an order of injunction restraining the defendant therein, which includes the petitioner and his wife and also Officers of the Electricity Board, from drawing the line through her property. Suit is pending without any interlocutory order passed by the court. On account of the pendency of the suit the Board did not take any further action pursuant to Ext.P9 and it was complaining of inaction on the part of the Board in implementing Ext.P6, this writ petition is filed. 5. Counsel for the 3rd respondent refers me to Ext.P8, the suit filed by her and submits that the suit is pending and therefore the 2nd respondent could not have drawn the line. WP(c).No.4452/09 4 6. Even the 3rd respondent has no case that the civil court has passed any interim order restraining the officers from drawing the line. Further the 3rd respondent has no case that she has challenged Ext.P6 in any manner known to law or that the said order is not in force. If that be so, Ext.P6 order passed by the Ist respondent exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act has become final and that order has to be reimplemented by the 2nd respondent, particularly since there is no interlocutory order passed by the civil court. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to draw line in implementation of Ext.P6 order passed by the first respondent through the alignment allowed by the said authority. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WP(c).No.4452/09 5 WP(c).No.4452/09 6