IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1929 WA.No. 2564 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7386/2006 Dated 06/08/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER; ---------------------- P.L.THOMAS, PAINEL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. P.J.JOSEPH, PAINEL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, K.S.E.B, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ETTUMANOOR. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... W.A. No. 2564 OF 2007 ................................................................................... Dated this the 6th November, 2007 J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, C.J.: Challenging the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)7386 of 2006 dated 06.08.2007, the petitioner in the Writ Petition is before us in this appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, we will be referring to the appellant as the petitioner. 3. The first respondent herein had preferred an application before the third respondent/Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B., Ettumanoor for shifting of the electric post in his property for enabling him to construct a house. 4. Against the proposal to shift the post to the private road of the petitioner, he has filed his objections. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottayam had visited the site and had passed an order to shift the post, holding that installation of a post in the site in question will not cause any obstruction to the vehicles of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner, thereafter, questioned the attempts of the employees of the K.S.E.B. to install the post alleging that the procedure laid down under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act has not been complied with and that W.A. No. 2564 OF 2007 2 installation of the post will cause obstruction to the movement of his vehicles. Since there was objection for shifting of the electric post by the petitioner, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Ettumanoor had filed a petition before the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottayam under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. 6. After registering the petition so filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, the Additional District Magistrate had inspected the site on 17.08.2005 and had reported that the line proposed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Ettumanoor is the most feasible and convenient one . The District Magistrate, not being fully satisfied with the report of the Additional District Magistrate, had also made a personal inspection of the site. 7. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottyam, thereafter, after hearing the parties, has come to the conclusion that the route proposed by the Assistant Executive Engineer for erection of the post/pole is the most feasible and convenient to all the parties. Accordingly, the District Collector and District Magistrate has granted sanction to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Ettumanoor to shift the electric post from the property of one P.J. Joseph, as proposed by the Assistant Executive Engineer. It is that order was called in question by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7386 of 2006. By order dated 6th August, 2007, the learned single Judge W.A. No. 2564 OF 2007 3 has disposed of the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before us in this appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order. 9. We have perused the orders passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottayam on the petition filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Ettumanoor . The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottayam has taken into consideration the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Ettumanoor and also the report of the Additional District Magistrate who had inspected the site on 17.08.2005. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottayam had also made a personal enquiry and further had inspected the site in question. It is only thereafter, sanction has been granted to the Assistant Executive Engineer for shifting the post/pole. 10. The findings of the fact by the authorities normally should not be disturbed by this court unless the orders so passed are in violation of the statutory provisions or contrary to the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, we do not see any one of the ingredients which we have mentioned earlier. Therefore, first and foremost, the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the orders passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottayam on 15.02.2006. In that view of the matter, we not only set aside the orders of the learned single Judge but we confirm the W.A. No. 2564 OF 2007 4 orders passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottayam also. Accordingly, the following: O R D E R i) The Writ Appeal is disposed of. ii) The orders of the learned single Judge in the Writ Petition (C) No.7386 of 2006 dated 6th August 2007 is set aside. iii) The proceedings of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottayam dated 15.02. 2006 is confirmed. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk