IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9663 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RAJI, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI, SREEVALSAM VEEDU, NADUVILA MURI, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, SASTHAMKOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E,B, TRANSMISSION SECTION (LINES), EDAPPON P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 4. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KOLLAM. 5. SRI.VIJAYANANDAN PILLAI, SREEMANGALATH VEEDU, NADUVILA MURI, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, SASTHAMKOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1, R2, R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K MOHANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.9663 of 2009-C ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. Petitioner also seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of her property. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent Board. I feel that, in view of the direction I propose to issue, it is not necessary to issue notice to the 5th respondent. The case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner has cultivated 300 rubber trees in the property in her possession. By Ext.P2 she is called upon to cut and remove the rubber trees standing in the property. Petitioner filed objection. According to the petitioner, unless there is acquisition, Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. Learned standing counsel points out that this would come under Sec.68 (5) of the Electricity Act and the Board will have to move the executive authority. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this may have to be referred to the Additional WPC No.9663/2009 -2- District Magistrate under Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. For the present I need not go into the question as in view of the objection of the petitioner, Ext.P2 cannot be implemented unless permission is obtained from the lawful authority. Leaving it free to respondents 1 and 2 to move appropriate authority seeking permission for cutting and removing trees of the petitioner mentioned in Ext.P2, the writ petition is disposed of. I make it clear that I leave open the right of the petitioner to raise her contention before the authority. I further make it clear that unless and until permission is obtained Ext.P2 cannot be implemented. The authority must give opportunity to the petitioner to make out her case. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS