IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30901 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.V.GANAPATHY NAMBOODIRI,S/O.EASWARAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 70 YEARS,AGRICULTURE,RESIDING AT ALAKAPUARY,THALAKULAM ROAD,CHERUTHAZHAM VILLAGE, P.O MANDUR, KANNUR DISTRICT -670 501. BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SRI.M.M.ANTO. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,PAYANGADI SECTION, PAYANGADI PO, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 358. R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.30901 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed this writ petition to redress the grievances with respect to the inaction on the part of the respondents in taking appropriate steps for shifting of the electric line which is passing through his property. The contention of the petitioner is that he has earlier approached the respondents by making an application for shifting of the line and drawing it through the passage viz., a lane, on the western side of his property. Thereafter, he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.19,569/- towards the expenses for shifting. Ext.P1 receipt would reveal the fact that the said amount was remitted on 2.12.2005. Since no action was taken even thereafter Ext.P2 lawyer notice was issued by the petitioner. Even thereafter no steps were taken by the respondents for shifting the electric line. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the respondents. Virtually, as per paragraph 4 therein the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the submission of the application for WP(C).No.30901/2010 2 shifting and subsequent remittance of Rs.19,569/- on 2.12.2005, upon direction, are admitted by the respondents. Further, it would reveal that as early as in 2006, precisely on 2.1.2006, the respondents have started the works for shifting the electric line. The contention thereunder is that while the work was in progress one Sri.Thambayi and Sri.Bhaskaran objected to the shifting of the line and based on the said objections the work could not be completed. The respondents attribute laches on the part of the petitioner for the said action. I am of the view that the attributing laches on the part of the petitioner for the blameworthy action of the respondents in failing to resort to appropriate proceedings contemplated under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act at a time when the aforesaid persons raised their objections is absolutely unsustainable. Admittedly, the petitioner has remitted the amount estimated by the respondents towards expenses for shifting of the electric line as early as on 2.12.2005 and they had started the work as early as in January, 2006. If objections were raised by the aforesaid persons for the shifting, the respondents should have taken appropriate steps under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act at the right time. The respondents have not offered any explanation for their failure in WP(C).No.30901/2010 3 resorting to the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. Obviously, it is not a case where the telegraph authority, viz., the respondents omitted to comply with the requisition whilst, admittedly, accepted the same and directed the petitioner to deposit the expense for the same. That apart, admittedly, an amount of Rs.19,569/- was paid by the petitioner pursuant to the said direction and the work was started and it was in progress when the aforesaid persons raised their objections, as is obvious from Ext.R2(a). Therefore, I am unable to comprehend the statement made in the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was at fault. Be that as it may, the respondents are duty bound to take up the matter before the competent authority in accordance with the provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act for averting the objections and to shift the line in accordance with their earlier decision for which they have already received the expenses. The respondents shall take appropriate steps in that regard expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The decision by the competent authority on such reference shall be implemented without any further delay. Since the respondents have already received the expense for the WP(C).No.30901/2010 4 shifting, they are bound to shift the electric line subject to the orders to be passed by the competent authority as and when such an order is passed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS