IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34796 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ANNAMMA KURIAKOSE,KILITHATTIL HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA.P.O,(VIA)PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 556. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. POWER GRID CORPORATION LTD.,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER(TLC),CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE 'CHANDNI',PLOT NO.190-B,MAVELIPURAM COLONY.P.O, KAKKANAD,KOCHI-682 030. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,KAKKANAD.P.O, KOCHI-682 030. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, KOZHIKODE-673 017. R1 BY ADV.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34796 of 2010 Y ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate on 27-08-2010 in pursuance to the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C) No.21330/2009, in which, petitioner's son was the second petitioner. That writ petition was disposed of directing the District Magistrate to consider a petition in terms of the provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, for the removal of obstruction offered by the petitioners therein against drawing an electric line. On examination of the claim of the second petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21330/2009, the District Magistrate held in Ext.P3 order that he was only a member of an Action Council and that his property was not affected by the drawal of the line. For that reason the District Magistrate did not hear the petitioner's son and passed the order. W.P.(C) No.34796/10 : 2 : 2. In my view, person who is injuriously affected by the drawing of the line has a right to object the drawal of an electric line. If such a person raises an objection, he will be entitled to be heard in a proceedings before the District Magistrate also. In this case, the petitioner's son did not have any property to be affected by drawal of the line and it was therefore, the District Magistrate did not hear him. I cannot find fault with the District Magistrate for such a view that has been taken. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is true that the petitioner's property is affected but, however, there is no case that the petitioner had raised any objection either by filing an application or otherwise, before any authority against the drawing of the line. 3. That apart, Ext.P3 order was passed way back on 27-08-2010 and it is challenged only now. In my view, the challenge at this distance of time is highly belated. 4. Petitioner has a complaint that Ext.P6 notice has been issued informing that the trees mentioned will be cut and W.P.(C) No.34796/10 : 3 : removed. According to the petitioner, unless compensation is fixed, further steps based on the notice cannot be proceeded with. However, it is seen from Ext.P7 notice issued by the Special Tahsildar(L.A.) that he is proposing to inspect the property of the petitioner for fixing compensation. Therefore, that contention also has no merit and is to be rejected. I do not see any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge