IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15265 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. GEORGE JACOB, RESIDING AT MUTHOOT HOUSE, T.C.4/2515, MARAPPALAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GEORGE ALEXANDER, MUTHOOT HOUSE, G/343, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 036. 3. GEORGE THOMAS, MUTHOOT HOUSE, MISEAST LANE , H.NO.9/324A, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 4. M.G.GEORGE MUTHOOT, G 74, MUTHOOT HOUSE, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI 110063. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF POWER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VIZHINJAM, VENGANOOR P.O. 5. AGASTHYA RESORTS & TOURS PRIVATE LTD., PULINKUDI, MULLOOR P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SRI.K.SREEKANTAN NAIR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN FOR R1, R3 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, FOR R2, R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 15265 OF 2008 P ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to quash Ext.P1 and all proceedings therein before the 3rd respondent. Ext.P1 is a petition filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Vizhinjam, apparently under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. According to the petitioners, there is no jurisdiction with the 3rd respondent to consider the matter. It is submitted that there is an alternate route through the existing pathway and that 5th respondent is owned by powerful persons. Ext.P1 is a petition filed by the statutory authority under section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. I do not see how the petitioners can be permitted to challenge Ext.P1. The petitioners can raise their contentions before the 3rd respondent. At this stage, I feel WPC.15265/08 : 2 : that it cannot be open to the petitioners to raise any grievance at all. Thus, leaving open the rights of the petitioners to raise all the objections before the 3rd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks