IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4897 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.V.JACOB, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE VARU, CHALISSERY (H), VALAPAD P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY SRI.ARUN KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., THRIPRAYAR. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. 3. THANKAMMA, W/O.JOSE, PULIKKAN (H), VALAPAD P.O., THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. A true copy of the rough sketch showing the property of the petitioner . Ext.P2. A copy of the registered will dated 144.1987 I favour of the petitioner Ext.P3. A true copy of the objections dated 24.11.2008 filed by the mother of the petitioner Ext.P4. A true copy of the notice dated 1.12.2008 issued by the mother of the Petitioner. Ext.P5. The photograph showing the manner in which the line was drawn in the petitioner's property. Ext.P6. A true copy of the order NO.C4/SR/ET/111/O8/K. Dis dated 12.1.09 issued by the 2nd respondent. // true copy // P.A to judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.4897 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Though notice has been service on the 3rd respondent, there is no appearance on her behalf. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. Ext.P6, an order passed by the 2nd respondent exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is under challenge. Petitioner submits that 86 cents of property situated in R.S.No.187/1 of Pallippuram Village was devolved on him as per Ext.P2 Will executed by his deceased father and that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is stated that the 3rd respondent made an application for supply of electricity WP(c).No.4897/09 2 and there upon the first respondent made a proposal to draw the electric line to the premises of the 3rd respondent from an electric post, which was already erected in the eastern boundary of the petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, when that was objected, the first respondent moved the 2nd respondent invoking his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued notice of hearing, addressed to the petitioner's mother requiring her to appear and raise her objections. Representing the mother, petitioner appeared and filed Ext.P3 objection. In Ext.P3, the mother stated that the property does not belong to her and that it belongs to her son. Even on merits, she raised her objections and submitted that the line shall not be allowed to be drawn through the property in question. It is stated that local inspection was held pursuant to Ext.P4 and finally Ext.P6 order removing the obstructions was passed. It is stated that on the strength of Ext.P6, weather proof line has been drawn, and connection has been given to the 3rd respondent. WP(c).No.4897/09 3 4. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that the same was passed and the petitioner, appeared only as a representative of his mother. A reading of Ext.P3 shows thy at various objections including the one that there is possibility of whole land being rendered useless if the line is drawn as proposed has been raised by the petitioner, which has not be adverted to when Ext.P6 order was passed. Therefore I am satisfied that Ext.P6 reveals non application of mind and failure to consider the contentions raised. For these reasons Exts.P6 is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner, first respondent and the 3rd respondent and pass fresh orders, within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.4897/09 4