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. 7827 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PONNAMMA, AGED 327 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KARUTHA PENNU, RESIDING AT VALIYAKANDAMTHALACKAL VEEDU, CHETTUMUKKU, EDACKAD DESOM, NEMOM P.O., PALLICHAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH P.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SADASIVAN ALIAS KUTTAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT A.R.BHAVAN, EDACKOD DESOM, NEMOM P.O., PALLICHAL VILLAGE. 2. GIRIJA, WIFE OF SADASIVAN, RESIDING AT A.R.BHAVAN, EDACKOD DESOM, NEMOM P.O., PALLICHAL VILLAGE. 3. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, BALARAMAPURAM. 4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON 27/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of Sale Deed No.1652/2008 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Balaramapuram. Ext.P2. True copy of the oder dated 29.1.2009 in proceedings NO. D.Dis 12284/08/S1 of the 4t respondent. Respondent's Exhibits Ext.R1(a) True copy of the plan prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB showing the location of the property of the 2nd respondent and the National Highway. Ext.R1(b) True copy of the consent letter issued by Saji. Ext.R1(c). True copy of the consent letter issued by Sanal Kumar. Ext.R1(d) True copy of the sale deed obtained by Sanal Kumar. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.7827 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the 4th respondent exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner own 3 cents of property in Sy. No.207/8A of Pallichal Village, to the south of which, respondents 1 and 2 also own certain properties. It is stated that respondents 1 and 2 applied for power supply to their residential premises. When line was attempted to be drawn, objections were raised by two persons who are not parties to this writ petition. Thereupon the 3rd respondent took up the matter before the 4th respondent for an order removing the objections offered. Accordingly, notice was issued to respondents 1 to 3 and also to the objectors and finally WP(c).No.7827/09 2 Ext.P2 order was passed removing the obstruction. 3. In this writ petition what the petitioner contends is that though a portion of the line is to pass through his property, he was neither made a party to the proceedings before the 4th respondent nor was he put on notice before Ext.P2 order was passed. He also contends that there are alternate and more convenient alignments available, through which the line could be drawn. It is with these contentions the writ petition is filed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, they would mainly contend that the petitioner was not an objector before the 3rd respondent. It is stated that even before they made application for supply of electrical energy to their premises, they had already obtained consent from the transferor of the petitioner as per Ext.R1(c). It is stated that the petitioner purchased the property subsequent to Ext.R1(c). According to them, it was knowing fully about Ext.R1(c) that he did not even raise any objection. On this basis they contend WP(c).No.7827/09 3 that the petitioner is not entitled to notice or to be heard before Ext.P2 order was passed. 5. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner the stand taken by her is that even if Ext.R1(c) consent was issued, she is not bound by such consent. 6. Admittedly, going by Ext.R1(a) sketch produced by the respondents 1 and 2, a portion of the line to be drawn to the premises of respondents 1 and 2, is to pass thorough the boundary of the petitioner's property. Therefore, if at all petitioner had any objection, he could have objected to the proposal when it was drawn up by the 3rd respondent. This he did not do, apparently for the reason that the transferor had already consented to the drawing of line and that he had acquired the property much later to the consent. Once the transferor has given consent as above and so long as the genuineness of that consent is not challenged or found against in any legal proceedings, there is no reason why the petitioner should be absolved of the commitments so given WP(c).No.7827/09 4 by his predecessor. If that be the case, I cannot find fault with the 3rd respondent in not impleading the petitioner as a party in the proceedings or the 4th respondent in not issuing notice to the petitioner before Ext.P2 order was passed. 7. The jurisdiction of the Addl. District Magistrate is only to consider whether the obstruction offered is justifiable or not and it is only up to the officers of the Board to decide on the alignment. Therefore, I cannot also find fault with the 4th respondent in not considering the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioner. I do not find any substance in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.7827/09 5