IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 1726 of 2006() AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37318/2003 Dated 05/07/2006 APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 IN THE WP 1. PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPPARAMBU ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BSNL, JACOB VELLANATT ROAD, NEAR TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BSNL, JACOB VELLANATTU ROAD, NEAR TOWN NORTH, POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER IN THE WP A.K.JOSE, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 35/1199, INDIRA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM-682 025. ADDITIONAL RESPOSNDENTS: 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 5. SRI. P. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, 10-C, NEDUMKANDAM RESIDENCY, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. WA 1726/2006 2 (ADDL. RESPSONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.9.2006 IN W.A. 1726/2006.) (ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.2.2009 IN I.A. 155/2009.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.JOSE (PARTY-IN-PERSON) SC FOR KWA ADDL. R2 BY ADV. SRI. DINESH M. ADDL. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR K.S.E.B. ADDL. R4 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, S.C. FOR COCHIN CORPORATION. R5 BY ADV. SRI. K.S.BHARATHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 1726 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent challenging the proposed shifting of a telecom pillar by the BSNL to the road side near to his house. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court, vide order dated 5.12.2003, granted permission to the BSNL to shift the pillar without affecting the first respondent in any way whatsoever. BSNL has accordingly, shifted and installed the pillar. Learned Single Judge, in the final judgment directed re-shifting of the pillar in front of the four cents of land on the road side for the reason that the said land is lying vacant. However, BSNL has challenged the judgment on the ground that the present location of the pillar is such that it causes no inconvenience to anybody whatsoever including the first respondent. 2. We have heard the Standing Counsel for the BSNL appearing for the appellant and the first respondent who appeared in person. On our request, the standing counsel for the BSNL has produced several W.A. 1726/2006 2 photographs which clearly show that the pillar is installed on road side in front of another house and in no way it affects the first respondent's property. We do not know how the first respondent can oppose the present position of the pillar which is in front of the property of another person, who has no objection. The direction of the learned Single Judge to shift the pillar to the front of the four cents vacant land, belonging to another person, merely because he has not constructed any building, is really injustice to that person who is free to construct a building in his property and when the building is constructed necessarily, the pillar has to be again shifted. The pillar is a net work installation for several phone connections in the area which has to be necessarily located on road side. Of course, it should be so installed that nobody lacks access to any house or to any building and does not obstruct traffic or pedestrians. We are convinced from the photographs that the pillar now installed is in front of the property of the first respondent's neighbour and therefore the first respondent has no right to challenge or object against the same. We find that the pillar is located sufficiently away from the respondent's property and the said pillar cannot cause any kind of hindrance or obstruction to the access to the property of the first respondent. W.A. 1726/2006 3 We therefore, allow the writ appeal and vacate the judgment of the learned Single Judge and declare that the shifting of the pillar pursuant to the interim order dated 5.12.2003 is perfectly in order. P.R. RAMAN, ( JUDGE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-