IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29953 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- NAIZAM T.J., K.P.V/186, SIVANTE KIZHAKKETHARAVIL, KRISHNAPURAM, KAPPIL, MEKKU, KERALA-690 513. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIAGAM LTD, KAYAMKULAM TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, KAYAMKULAM.PIN-690 501 2. THE JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIAGAM LTD, KRISHNAPURAM TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,PIN-690 538. 3. A.JALALUDHEEN KUTTY, SIVANTE KIZHAKKE THARAYIL, KAPPIL WEST MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, PIN-690 513. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.29953/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL ISSUED BY THE BSNL. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE IN OS NO.242/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON RECEIPT OF HIS APPLICATION ON 21/4/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29953 of 2011 T ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ According to the petitioner, he has a telephone connection provided by the respondents falling under the category of Wireless in Local Lupe(WLL). He applied for converting the existing connection to a land line connection. That was not acted upon and, therefore, this writ petition is filed. 2. However, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner's father, the third respondent, had filed an objection on 29.12.2010, objecting against drawing of telephone line through his property for giving connection to the petitioner. It is stated that it is therefore that the request of the petitioner could not be acted upon. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a suit between him and the third W.P.(C) No.29953/2011 : 2 : respondent as O.S.No.242/2009 before the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam and that the same was compromised as per Ext.P2. It is stated that, as per Ext.P2, he is entitled to enjoy the property of the third respondent in the manner as provided therein. 4. Irrespective of the rights claimed by the petitioner, now that he made an application for converting the telephone connection and as the third respondent has raised objections, it is for respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law, so that steps for removal of the obstruction can be taken. This, respondents 1 and 2 shall do, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/22/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge