IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 22361 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GANGADHARAN PILLAI, EZHAVARETH, KIZHAKKEMURI, THAMARAKULAM, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MAVELIKKARA. 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, CHARUMMOOD. 3. RUGMINI AMMA, THANNIKKAL KIZHAKKETHIL, KIZHAKKEMURI, MAVELIKKARA. 4. JANAKI AMMA, THANNIKKAL, KIZHAKKEMURI, THAMARAKULAM, MAVELIKKARA. 5. SOMAKURUP, THANNIKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKEMURI, THAMARAKULAM, MAVELIKKARA. 6. SARASWATHI AMMA, THANNIKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKEMURI, THAMARAKULAM, MAVELIKKARA. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. R2 BY SC SRI. P.O. THAJUDEEN. R3 BY ADV.SRI.H.RAMANAN R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.2236/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4.10.1993. EXT. P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 14.8.1997. EXT. P3 : A TRUE COPY OF RE SURVEY PLAN OF SURVEY NO.269 DATED NIL. EXT. P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.7.2008. EXT. P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 157/93 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT , MAVELIKKARA DATED 23.7.1993. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.22361 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. It is an order passed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection if the line is drawn as permitted under Ext.P4. The line can be drawn only as permitted under Ext.P4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has no objection in the line being drawn as permitted under Ext.P4, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. I dismiss the writ petition. But I make it clear that the line must necessarily be drawn as permitted under Ext.P4. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb