IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23642 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.SURESH, KAVUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU KOTTUKALKONAM, KATTACHALKUZHY P.O.,BALARAMAPURAM NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. S.SANTHA, D/O. SULOCHANA & W/O.K.SURESH, RESIDING AT DO..DO.. 3. C.DAS, VARUVILA VEEDU, KOTTUKALKONAM, KATTCHALKUZHY PO,BALARAMAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 4. J.PRABHA, D/O. JOYCE & W/O. C.DAS RESIDING AT DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND EXECUTIVE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURM DISTRICT. 3. S.RAMESAN, RAJEEV BHAVAN, KAVUVILA, KOTTUKALKONAM, KATTACHALKUZHY PO, BALARAMAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23642 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Grievance raised in this writ petition is mainly in regard to Ext.P9 proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent, for an order under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of Indian Electricity Act for supplying electricity to the premises of the 3rd respondent. The petitioners contend that the property covered by Ext.P1 belongs to petitioners 1 & 2, and that property covered by Ext.P2 belongs to petitioners 3 & 4. It is stated that the proposal is to draw the line affecting the aforesaid properties. But notice has not been given on Ext.P9 proceedings to all the petitioners. 2. Although there are several other complaints raised, in view of the aforesaid allegation that is raised, the case was adjourned with a direction to the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions in this matter. 3. Today, the learned Government Pleader confirms that on WP(C) No.23642/2009 -2- Ext.P9 proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent, only petitioners 1 & 3 were shown as respondents and therefore, the 1st respondent issued notice only to petitioners 1 & 3, and that they had entered appearance on 10/06/2009, 05/08/2009, and the matter now stands posted to 28/08/2009. Evidently, therefore, the petitioners 2 & 4, although are co-owners, have not been put on notice, and to that extent, the grievances in this writ petition has to be upheld. 4. However, having regard to the fact that proceedings are posted before the 1st respondent tomorrow, I do not think that a direction should be issued to the 1st respondent to issue notice to petitioners 2 & 4 also, as that will result only in delaying the proceedings. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- That it will be open to petitioners 2 & 4 also to appear before the 1st respondent tomorrow, along with petitioners 1 & 3, and raise their objections against Ext.P9 proceedings. It is directed that if petitioners 2 & 4 appear before the 1st respondent as directed above, the 1st respondent shall also consider Ext.P10(a) objection, WP(C) No.23642/2009 -3- allegedly filed, if the same has already been received. 6. It is made clear that all other contentions raised in this writ petition against the illegality of Ext.P9 proceedings are left open to be urged before the 1st respondent for adjudication. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg