IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 28813 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.LATHA KUMARY, W/O.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, MANGATTU KIZHAKKATHIL, KUNNATHOOR EAST P.O., KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION KADAMPANAD, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. SRI.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, ELAMANNU VEEDU, (MANGATT EDAPPURAYIL), KUNNATHOOR EAST P.O., KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN- 690 520 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.KANNAN SRI.AJEESH S.BRITE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 28813 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of 58 cents comprised in Sy.No.749/9A of Kunnathoor Village. Earlier, based on an application for electric connection submitted by the 4th respondent, the second respondent had drawn line through the pathway which is situated in front of the property of the petitioner. For the purpose of granting of electric connection to the 4th respondent two posts were installed in the pathway. Ext.P2 would reveal the location of the Electric post. It would reveal that Post No.2 was installed outside the compound wall of the petitioner's property. Subsequently, the line was drawn and it was energized. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers. i. To call for the records leading to the petitioner's case from the 2nd respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the proceedings to draw electric line over the petitioner's property to get electric connection to the 4th respondent beneficiary. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding WPC. 28813/2010 : 2 : the 1st respondent to allow Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioner under section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act and shift the Electric line through the route in the sketch from Point No.1 to 3 suggested by the petitioner within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioner under section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act and shift the Electric line through the route in the sketch from point No.1 to 3 suggested by the petitioner within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court after giving an opportunity of being heard the petitioner. iv. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get shifting of electric line through the route in the sketch from point No.1 to 3 suggested by the petitioner as per Ext.P2. 2. Prayer 1 cannot be granted to the petitioner for the reason that the line has already been drawn and energized. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner is maintainable or not under Section 17 and whether a direction is given to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps on Ext.P3. Admittedly, Ext.P2 is an application purported to have been submitted under section 17 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 17 reads thus: 17. Removal or alteration of telegraph line or post on property other than that of a local authority. (1) when under the foregoing provisions of this Act, a WPC. 28813/2010 : 3 : telegraph line or post has been placed by the telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not being property vested in or under the control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to do so desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the telegraph line or post should be removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered in form, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line or post accordingly: A perusal of section 17 would reveal that the request for removal or alteration under section 17 would lie only if a telegraph line or post has been placed by the Telegraph Authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property not being a property vested in or under the control of management of a local authority. In order to maintain a petition under section 17 and seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application, the petitioner has to show that he is having a legal right. A perusal of section 17 and the contention raised in this writ petition would undoubtedly reveal that the line in question was not placed in, over, along, across in or upon the property belonging to the petitioner. In fact, Ext.P4 itself would reveal the true picture. Ext.P4 is a photograph produced by the petitioner himself. It would WPC. 28813/2010 : 4 : reveal that the post in question has been installed outside the compound wall of the petitioner. When that be the position, which is revealed from the pleadings in this writ petition as also from Ext.P4 photograph, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot contend that he is having a legal right to raise objection. In this case, the petitioner fails to show his legal right. In such circumstances, this court will not be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider Ext.P2 application. That apart, it is evident that the post in question has been installed and energized. Ext.P4 would further show that there is no gate put up on that side of the compound wall wherein the post in question was installed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot canvass that the location of post No.2 is causing inconvenience to ingress and egress to his property. For all these reasons, I am of the view that this writ petition is without any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge