IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24233 of 2008(I) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ PADMANABHA PANICKER, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O KESAVA PANICKER,PUTHENVELI, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY SRI.L.JAYAWANTH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, POOCHAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA. 3. GOPALN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O AYYANKUTTY, PULLAID VEEDU, WARD NO. V, PANAVALLY PANCHAYATH, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.P.A.HARISH FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO.24233 OF 2008 I PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH. EXT.P2COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.N2-34672/07 DATED 13.8.2007 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 6.9.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.N2-34672/07 DATED 5.12.2007. EXT.P5COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 3.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE PANAVALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., POOCHAKKAL. EXT.P6PHOTOGRAPH. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 24233 OF 2008 I -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an order passed under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act granting permission to draw the line over the property of the petitioner. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel for petitioner impugns Ext.P4 order on the following grounds: Firstly, he contended that Ext.P4 is violative of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate (1997 (2) KLT 979). He points out that Ext.P4 does not comply with the law laid down by the Division Bench. He further points out that there is an alternate route and the line can be drawn along the alternate route on the north of the property of the petitioner and the petitioner has no objection in the line crossing the property situated on the northern side of the property. WPC.24233/08 I 2 3. A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent wherein he has stated that he was a kudikidappukaran of the petitioner. It is stated, inter alia, that for drawing the line along the northern side, there will be three property crossings, including that of the petitioner. A Reply Affidavit also has been filed by the petitioner, wherein he has, inter alia, produced Exts.P5 and P6 sketch and photograph respectively. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board who got instructions, would submit that what is envisaged under the proposed route is drawing of forty metres of overhead line and drawing fifteen metres of weather- proof line. As far as the alternate proposal pointed out by the petitioner is concerned, the distance is the same. But, it is pointed out that the line would have to cross over the property of Shri Karthikeyan, Shri T.D. Gopi and also the petitioner. Further, learned standing counsel also submits that no tree belonging to the petitioner will be cut for drawing the line as WPC.24233/08 I 3 permitted under Ext.P4. 4. After having heard the contentions of the parties, I am of the view that I need not exercise my discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ext.P4 order may not fully satisfy the requirements laid down by the Division Bench in Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate (1997 (2) KLT 979). There is reference to alternate route and that three consents are required in Ext.P4. Having had the advantage of hearing the parties, and particularly of the Standing Counsel who got instructions in the matter, and being posted with the facts as they stand, I would think that no purpose will be served even if I were to set aside the order and remit it back for consideration again of the alternate proposal. This is for the reason that admittedly the proposal involves obtaining consent from two others whose properties would have to be crossed necessarily. Having regard to the totality of the facts present in WPC.24233/08 I 4 this case, I decline jurisdiction and the Writ Petition fails and it is rejected. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True copy// PS to Judge