IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5801 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BIJU A.P., 'NAVAMI', POLIKKODU, VAYAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL SECTION, VALAKAM - 691 532. ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5801 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that in his property situated in Survey No.271/3 of Valakam Village mentioned in Ext.P1 possession certificate and Ext.P2 location sketch, he has constructed a residential building and submitted an application to the respondent for supply of electrical energy. According to the petitioner, close to the boundary of his property, there is a pathway, having a width of 6.2 meters, passing through a Government property situated in Survey Nos.271/3 & 272/1. The petitioner refers to Exts.P3 to P5 in this context. According to the petitioner, his request for power supply was registered by the respondents. But, however, they did not take any steps for supplying the power. Thereupon, he made Ext.P6 complaint to which he got Ext.P7 reply informing that one Mr.Muralidharan Pillai had raised objection to the drawing of line to the petitioner’s residential house, and that therefore the District Magistrate has to be approached for obtaining orders under the WP(C) No.5801/2009 -2- Indian Telegraph Act. The petitioner was also called upon to execute an indemnity bond and make a cash deposit of Rs.1,500/-. It is on receipt of Ext.P7, this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 and to direct the respondent to provide electric connection to the petitioner by drawing the line through the pathway mentioned above. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondent, on receipt of the petitioner’s application for power supply, estimate was prepared for giving service connection, which included construction of 29 meters of overhead line and 20 meters of weather proof wire through the pathway. It is stated that while the respondent was executing the work, one Shri.G.Muralidharan Pillai, Kuzhivila Veedu, Polikkodu objected to the work, asserting that he has title over the land through which the pathway is passing. It is stated that he also submitted Ext.R1(a) complaint in this behalf. According to the respondent, in view of the objection so raised by Shri.Muralidharan Pillai, the course open to the respondent was to move the Additional District Magistrate and it was therefore that he issued Ext.P7. The respondent has also WP(C) No.5801/2009 -3- referred to Clause 14(5) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 to justify Ext.P7. 3. Although, it is the case of the petitioner that the pathway is passing through the Government Property, fact remains that Shri.Muralidharan Pillai raised the objection to draw the line through the pathway contending that he has title over the land in question. Once a dispute as above is raised and obstruction is offered, the Indian Telegraph Act requires the respondent to move the ADM and obtain orders removing the obstruction for drawing of the line. It was for that purpose he issued Ext.P7. Having regard to the nature of the dispute that is raised, I do not find any irregularity in Ext.P7. Therefore, the prayer sought in this writ petition for a direction to the respondent to draw line ignoring the objection raised and without obtaining orders under the Indian Telegraph Act cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg