IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7621 of 2009(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VENUGOPAL, PANANTHANATHU, PONADU, KAROOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.C.SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, POOVANTHURUTHU. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, T.C.SECTION, KUMARAKOM, K.S.E.B., PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 5. ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.7621 of 2009-W ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 16 Ares of property. It is stated that complaint is against proposed drawing of line. By Ext.P1 petitioner is called upon to cut and remove 7 Rubber trees and 3 Anjily trees. According to the petitioner, this can be done only if permission is granted by the Magistrate under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 10 (d). Apparently, petitioner approached the Additional District Magistrate. Ext.P3 decision is seen to have been taken stating that it is meant for public benefit and therefore it cannot be considered. In a matter where Section 10(d) is attracted unless permission is obtained from the Magistrate under Section 16, none of the acts mentioned in Section 10 (d) can be done. In this case there is a direction to cut and remove the trees standing in the petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, there is also alternative proposal. In such circumstances Ext.P3 is unsustainable and permission WPC No. 7621/2009 -2- is to be obtained by the Board on a reference to the Additional District Magistrate. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Ist respondent to refer the issue to the 5th respondent. This should be done within a period of one week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The 5th respondent will consider and take a decision within three weeks from the date of receipt of petition necessarily with notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I also make it clear that it should not be understood as meaning that I have expressed any view against the proposal to draw the line through the public road. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS