IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16112 of 2009(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, NILAVU, ARAMPUNNA, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DRISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DRISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B ELECTRICITY SUB DIVISION, PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICITY SECTION, VILAKKUDY, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 5. SRI. THOMAS PETER, KADVIL VEEDU, THOLIKODE, MATHRA, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADVS. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2-4 MR.JOHN VARGHESE FOR R5 MR.P.M.JOSEPH FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MUHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16112 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 30.09.2008 IN W.P.(C)NO.26652/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P2: COPY OF NOTICE NO.A4-49589/2008 DTD 8.5.2009 ISSUED BY R1. 5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R5(a): COPY OF ORDER OF R1 DTD 5.6.2009. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD 18.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHAKKAVARACKAL. EXT.R5(c): COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY DTD NIL. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. ACD ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16112 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The 5th respondent applied for power connection and respondents 2 & 3 made a proposal to draw the line through a pathway, which is jointly owned by the petitioner and 5th respondent. 2. It is sated that in September, 2006, an attempt was made to draw the line and that did not materialise following the objections that were raised by the petitioner. Again in 2008, yet another attempt was made and at that stage, according to the petitioner he filed WP(C) No.26652/2008 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment directing that the matter be taken up before the 1st respondent to resolve the issue in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. 3. Accordingly, an application was made to the 1st respondent and pursuant to the notices that were issued, the petitioner appeared before him on 16/10/2008. According to the WP(C) No.16112/2009 -2- petitioner, hearing did not take place on that day and it was promised to issue fresh notice of hearing. The petitioner submits that he also filed objection before the 1st respondent. 4. Accordingly, notice scheduling hearing on 24/04/2009 was issued. On that day, on behalf of the petitioner, his counsel appeared, and according to the petitioner, hearing did not take place, and the proceedings were again adjourned. Thereafter by Ext.P2, a site inspection was scheduled on 13/05/2009. However, that also was postponed to 04/06/2009. It is stated that while the matter remained as above, Ext.R5(a) order, dated 05/06/2009 was issued, ordering that the line be drawn through the common pathway. It is at that stage, this writ petition is filed. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order was passed without hearing or conducting a local inspection. 5. In view of the above assertion made before this Court, by order dated 24/06/2009 the learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions from the 1st respondent. Accordingly, instructions have been obtained and the learned WP(C) No.16112/2009 -3- Government Pleader informs that on 24/04/2009 on behalf of the petitioner his counsel appeared and that all the parties were heard on that date. In so far as the local inspection is concerned, it is stated that though the inspection scheduled on 13/05/2009 did not take place, the local inspection was conducted on 04/06/2009. 6. In view of the above submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the correctness of which can not be disputed, the submission made by the petitioner that the order was passed without hearing him or a local inspection, is only to be rejected and I do so. 7. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the permission now granted is to draw the electric line though a pathway, which is jointly owned by the petitioner and 5th respondent. It is stated that in regard to the ownership of the pathway a dispute is pending before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara, and that the attempt of the respondents is to draw the line, and on the strength of which, set up a claim of title over the pathway in question. In my view, this apprehension of the petitioner is totally unwarranted. Even if the line is drawn on the strength of WP(C) No.16112/2009 -4- Ext.R5(a) through the pathway in question, that by itself can have no impact on the claim of title of either the petitioner or 5th respondent. If the dispute of title is pending before the Civil Court, it is for the Civil Court to decide the issue based on the materials available before it. On the whole, I do not find anything illegal in Ext.R5(a). Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg