IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33818 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MADHU GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KOMPANOLIL HOUSE, KOTTAMONPARA P.O., KUMARAMPERUR, VADAKKEKARA MURI, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN SRI.SAJI RAPHEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., KAKKANAD, KOCHI- 682 030. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, R2 SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH, R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33818 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is the owner in absolute possession of 114.660 cents in Re-survey No.101/2 in Block No. 38 of the Puthencruiz Village filed this writ petition aggrieved by the proposal on the part of the second respondent to draw electric lines through his property ignoring his objection. According to the petitioner on coming to know about the aforesaid proposal he has submitted Ext.P2 objection before the second respondent. Despite the receipt of Ext.P2 objection the second respondent did not take any action in terms of the provision 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition is filed. 2. I do not propose to consider the rival contentions on merits at this stage. Admittedly, aggrieved by the proposal the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 objection. Once an objection is received by the second respondent, the second respondent is duty bound to make a complaint in terms of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for removing the obstructions and resistance. Needless to WPC.33818/2010 : 2 : say that respondents 1 and 2 could proceed with the proposal only based on orders of the 3rd respondent in such circumstances. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take appropriate steps as contemplated under section 16 of Indian telegram Act 1885 read with section 164 of the Electricity Act,2003. Till the 3rd respondent takes a decision in the complaint,if any, preferred by the second respondent in terms of the said provisions construction or drawing of lines through the property of the petitioner shall not be effected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the time limit should be fixed for the purpose of finalization of proceedings. In the circumstances there will be a direction to the effect that, in case the second respondent refers the matter in terms of the aforesaid provisions the 3rd respondent shall take all endeavour to commence and conclude the proceedings relating to the issue, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such a complaint. Disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge