IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34058 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. PREMJITH LAL.T.P, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHAN, THERATHIL, KUNNAPPILLY, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. C.G.ANILKUMAR, CHOONDANTHURUTHI, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SUMAL.C.C, CHOONDANTHURUTHIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. P.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, PAYYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O,MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. P.I.MOHANDAS, PAYYAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. NIZIL.K.S, KUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. T.K.KALLIANY, W/O NARAYANAN, CHARAKKAT HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. V.K.SADANANDAN, VALLUPARAMBIL, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 9. V.R.SATHYAN, VATTAPARAMBIL, KUNNAPPILLY. P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 10. T.S.JOSHI, THORAYEL HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 11. K.R.SHABU, KUZHIPARAMBIL, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 12. C.K.PRAHALADAN, CHOONDANTHURUTHIL, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 13. K.R.SANTHOSH, KUZHIPARAMBIL, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 14. K.R.SURESH, KUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 15. DAMODARAN, PLASSERY, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 16. DINESAN, PERINGADAN, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 17. SALESH, PUNNAKKAPARAMBAN, KUNNAPPILLY.PO MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 18. RAJESH.M.V, MARAKKADAN, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 19. ANIL, KUZHIPARAMBIL, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 20. SHAJI, VATTAPARAMBAN, KUNNAPPILLY.P.O, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 21. T.K.PURUSHAN, THERATHIL, KUNNAPPILLY.PO, MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS MINISTER OF ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. JUNIOR ENGINEER, POWER GRID CORPORATION LTD, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. R1 BY ASST. SG SRI P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR. R2 BY SC ADV. SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.34058 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Prayers are two in number. They are as follows: “i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide compensation to the petitioners prior to the construction of 400 K.V. Kochi-Thrissur electric line. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to conduct a study whether the construction of 400 K.V.Kochi- Thrissur electric line is more feasible than the drawing of electric line over railway tracks.” But learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.A.X.Varghese submits that if there is resistance, the line cannot be drawn and the authority cannot act under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act except after permission is obtained from the Magistrate. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would on the other hand submits that actually the petitioners are not owners and they are members of the action council and they are not affected. If the petitioners are owners of land and if there is resistance, it is the law that before any action is done within the meaning of Section 10 of WPC.34058/2008. 2 the Act, the matter has to be referred to the Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Act. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if any act is sought to be done, which attracts Section 10 of the Act, by the second respondent over the properties of the petitioners, and they are the owners of the properties, in view of the resistance they have, the matter must be referred to the Magistrate and it is only after obtaining permission from him that any act under Section 10 can be done. I do not see any basis for the apprehension of the learned counsel for the second respondent that this is a general order and what I have stated in my judgment earlier is that the direction is in respect of the petitioners alone. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb