IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20769 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. KANNA BHARGAVI, AGED 80, W/O.KUNJATHAN, RESIDING AT MADHU MANDIRAM, CANTONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM. 2. DEVADASAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KANNA BHARGAVI, RESIDING AT MADHU MANDIRAM, CANTONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM. 3. REGITHA, AGED 39, W/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT MADHU MANDIRAM, CANTONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, KOLLAM. 4. V.N.KRISHNANKUTTY, MULLAVEETTIL KIZHAKKETHIL, CANTONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM. 5. V.N.ARJUNAN, MULLAVEETTIL KIZHAKKETHIL, CANTONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM. 6. V.N.SIVADASAN, MULLAVEETTIL KIZHAKKETHIL CANTONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 20769 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners have approached this court challenging Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is an order issued under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act granting permission to draw electric line for giving connection to respondents 4 to 6. One of the complaints of the petitioners was that the petitioners were not heard before the order was passed. This court directed an affidavit to be brought on record. An affidavit has been filed and the learned counsel for the petitioners does not seriously dispute the correctness of the statement in the affidavit to the effect that the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing. 2. I notice from the order that only 12 metres of weather proof line will pass through the boundary of petitioners' property. There is no averment in the writ petition regarding the correctness of this finding. Since this is the position, I feel that there is no ground to interfere with Ext.P8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb