IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33346 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C.P.MUTHORAN, JISHA NIVAS, KURUTHAN NILAM, MARYKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. K.BALAKRISHNAN VADHIAR, NANDINI NILAYAM, MARYKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE. 3. VARGHESE T.T., JIJO NIVAS, KATTARAMPOYIL NILAMPARAMBA, MARYKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.MATHEW, SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K S E B, WEST HILL P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673 001. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673 001. 4. SMT.AMUTHA, 'DIVAKAR NIVAS', MARYKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673 012. R1 & R2 BY SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, S.C, K.S.E.B, R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.33346 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners who are parties in Case No.98 of 2010 which is pending before the third respondent filed this writ petition mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from drawing electric line over the property of the petitioners. The fourth respondent herein applied for electrical connection to her residential building before the second respondent and pursuant to that the second respondent took steps to draw electric line for granting electrical connection to the residential building of the fourth respondent. Petitioners have raised their objections against such proposal. Thereupon, the second respondent referred the matter under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the third respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the procedures alleged to have been adopted by the third respondent in Case No.98 of 2010. Admittedly, the matter is still pending before the third respondent. The contention of the petitioners in this writ petition is that without affording an opportunity to them to file objections WP(C).No.33346/2010 2 the matter was posted for orders on 3.11.2010. Admittedly, no order has been passed on that day and the matter was adjourned to 10.11.2010. No material is placed before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that a decision would be taken by the third respondent without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioners. Evidently, in exercise of the powers under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the third respondent is yet to pass an order. The petitioners cannot presume that the third respondent will pass an order which is against their interest, that too, without considering their contentions. I am of the view that this writ petition is premature. The legality or otherwise of the proceeding now pending before the third respondent cannot be looked into at this stage, in this writ petition. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioners in challenging the order to be passed in Case No.98 of 2010 by the third respondent. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS