IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 1433 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. CHELLAPPAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, VANDETTIL PANDINJATTINKARA CHARUVILA, ERANOOR. 2. THULASEEDHARAN, THUSHARA BHAVAN, ERANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SMT.ANJALI VISWANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, AYOOR, KOLLAM. 2. SHRI.SUMITHRAN, SUMITHRALAYAM, MADATHIARA, PANAVELI P.O. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.1433 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Three persons including the petitioners objected to the drawal of the electric line. The beneficiaries are residents of a colony. The proceedings commenced some time in 2006 December. After a preliminary hearing, the file went from the District Magistrate, for a report of the Tahsildar and later returned with a noting that the parties were heard on 31.10.2007 also. The file available to the learned senior Government Pleader shows that the hearing on 31.10.2007 was conducted by some official subordinate to the District Collector. The Tahsildar had reported that the line could be drawn through the alignment x-y which is the one suggested by the KSEB officials. 2. The provisions of the Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act are statutory provisions. Removal of obstruction is an WPC 1433/08 2 exercise to be done under the statute. It is part of the police power which is sought by the licensee. The repository of the power to enforce that authority is the District Magistrate. In the absence of any statutory delegation of such authority, delegate cannot carry on with the procedure. Not only that, the only protection available to the holder of the land, who is objecting to the drawal of the line, is fair hearing at the level of the officer of a District Magistrate, goiing by the legislative wisdom behind the relevant provisions in the Telegraph and Electricity Act. May be the power of the District Magistrate could be exercised by the Additional District Magistrate. But, it essentially involves the exercise of statutory power of hearing the objection and over ruling it, if unsustainable and thus ordering removal of the obstruction. 3. The decision making process in the case, if any, does not satisfy any of the above bench marks on a perusal of the file. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the third respondent is directed to take up the matter WPC 1433/08 3 afresh and dispose of the application of the first respondent Assistant Executive Engineer in accordance with law within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is directed to appear before the third respondent on 24th April 2008. All other persons entitled to be heard would also be notified by the Additional District Magistrate. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE csl