IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14350 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. SYED MOHAMMED, THEKKEMAVUMKAMANNIL HOUSE, KATTOR MURI, NARANGANAM ORTH P.O., CHERUKLE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTIRCT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOZHENCHERRY. 3. HANEEFA, AGED 60 YEARS, KOLLAKADVUPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, KATTOOR MURI, NARANGANAM NORTH P., CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTIRCT,. 4. SALEENA, W/O. HANEEFA, AGED 60 YEARS, KOLLAKADVUPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, KOTTOOR MURI, NARANGAAM NORTH P.O, CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.14350 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner's grievance is regarding the proceedings that are pending before the first respondent on an application made by the 2nd respondent. 2. According to the Petitioner, he has filed O.S.No.48/09 before the Munsiff Court, Ranni against respondents 3 and 4. It is also stated that respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.96/09 against the Petitioner before the said court. It is stated that, while the suits are thus pending between the parties, respondents 3 and 4 filed an application for availing electricity connection and the line is to be drawn through the Petitioner's property. It is stated that when he raised objections, the 2nd respondent moved the first respondent for removing the obstruction, as provided under the Telegraph Act and Ext.P4 notice was issued by the first respondent. 3. Petitioner submits that on receipt of the notice he filed Ext.P5 objection. In this writ petition what the WP(c).No.14350/09 2 Petitioner prays for is that in view of the pendency of the civil suits as referred to above the first respondent should defer further proceedings before him, awaiting the outcome of the litigation between the Petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 4. In my view, even if it is true that suits are pending as averred by the petitioner, that itself is not a reason to direct the first respondent to keep further proceedings before him in abeyance. Irrespective of the pendency of the suit the first respondent is entitled to exercise the statutory powers conferred under the Telegraphs Act. 5. Evidently, acting upon the application made by the 2nd respondent the first respondent has issued Ext.P3 notice and as according to the petitioner proceedings are still pending, it is directed that the first respondent shall consider the matter with notice to the affected parties including the petitioner and consider the objections raised. Orders shall be passed in accordance with law. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WP(c).No.14350/09 3