IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19803 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KENT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., IST FLOOR, PUVURETH BUILDING, MANORAMA JN., KOCHI-682036, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SHAMEER MARACKAR. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PALARIVATTOM. 4. THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PALARIVATTOM. 5. SRI.K.S.SUDHI, KURUVELLIL HOUSE, PADHMANABHA NAGAR, PUZHAKHARAPADAM, VENNALA P.O., PIN-682 028. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.19803 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that they are a company engaged in construction activities. It is stated that in 84.810 cents of land in survey Nos.116/2,116/5,116/5-13 of Edapally South Village, they have constructed 13 villas and applied for power supply to the said premises. According to the petitioner, the application was sanctioned and they have made remittance of the required amounts as well. 2. It is stated that when the officers of the Board commenced work, the 5th respondent raised objection and as a result of which further work has been discontinued. It is stated that, since then there has not been any progress in this matter. Complaining of this situation, petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation to respondents 2 to 4 and there has not been any progress, even thereafter. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. WP(c).No.19803/09 2 3. Even on the petitioner's own showing, the work for drawing line to the premises in question was discontinued on account of the objection raised by the 5th respondent. When objection is raised in the manner as done by the 5th respondent, respondents 2 to 4 are required to move the District Magistrate as provided under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. There is nothing to show that such proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to move the District Magistrate, as required under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act for removal of the obstruction offered by the 5th respondent. Such application shall be made as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.19803/09 3