IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17751 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. SREEKUMAR, CHEMMARAPALLIL HOUSE, THANNIKANDOM, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DIST. 2. BINDU SREEKUMAR, W/O. SREEKUMAR, CHEMMARAPALLIL HOUSE, THANNIKANDOM, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,IDUKKI. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (IN-CHARGE),ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION, VAZHATHOPPU, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, IDUKKI. 3. SAJEEVAN, KANNADISSERIYIL HOUSE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI, CONVENER, THANNIKANDAM, DRINKING WATER SCHEME, IDUKKI. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17751 OF 2009 (L) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the 1st respondent exercising his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. Facts of the case are that for supplying electricity to the pump house attached to Thannikandem Drinking Water Scheme, Idukki, of which the 3rd respondent is the Convener, an application was made to the 2nd respondent. The line was to pass through the property of the petitioners. They raised objections by Exts.P1 and P2. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent, submitted Ext.P3 to the 1st respondent invoking his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 3. Accordingly, the 1st respondent heard the parties on 20/5/2009 and inspected the land in question on 21/5/2009. Reports were called for from the Village Officer and the Secretary of the Vazhathope Panchayat. Considering the entire material, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P4 order directing that the line be drawn from a post which is already erected at the north eastern WPC 17751/09 :2 : boundary of the petitioners property and through the northern portion of the petitioners property. It is aggrieved by this order, the writ petition is filed. 4. From the pleadings it would appear that the grievance highlighted by the petitioners is two fold. One is that the line will pass through their property and the other is that if the line is to pass in the manner as proposed, the petitioners will not be in a position to undertake construction of the house as proposed by them. 5. In so far as the construction of the house is concerned, based on the report of the Village Officer, the 1st respondent has entered a finding in Ext.P4 that if the line is drawn through the northern portion of the petitioners property, that will not create any obstruction for the proposed construction work nor will it cause any damage to the agricultural crops in the land. In the light of this factual finding and in the absence of any material to conclude otherwise, the first contention raised by the petitioners is only to be rejected. 6. The other grievance of the petitioners is that the line will cut across their property. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that the WPC 17751/09 :3 : District Magistrate has allowed drawing of the line from the post which is already erected at the north eastern boundary of the property and from that post the line is to pass through the northern portion of the property to the pump house in question. Therefore, the alignment of the line mentioned in Ext.P4 cannot be said to be as one creating any serious prejudice to the petitioners. On the whole, I am satisfied that Ext.P4 is not vitiated for any perversity warranting interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp