IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23206 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.K.SUBRAMANIAN,POOZHITHODI KOVILINGAL HOUSE, PALODE P.O. MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. SUB DIVISION, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,KUMARAMPUTHOOR SECTION, MANNARKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. NEELI,W/O. CHAMI,ALUMKUNNATH HOUSE, PALODE, MANNARKAD COLLEGE P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. BALAN,S/O. CHAMI, ALUMKUNNATH HOUSE, PALODE, MANNARKAD COLLEGE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23206 OF 2009 (U) ===================== Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that through the western and northern boundary of his property, electrical line was drawn without obtaining his consent or orders of the District Magistrate. He applied for shifting of that line, but however, the same was rejected by the competent authority as per Ext.P2. 2. Petitioner states that subsequently, yet another proposal was drawn by respondents 3 and 4 for drawing another line through the eastern boundary of the property to supply electricity to the premises of respondents 5 and 6. It is stated that when the petitioner raised his objections, the official respondents moved the 1st respondent for an order under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. On receipt of notice in that proceedings, petitioner filed Exts.P6 and P8 objections. It is stated that although the matter has been heard, no orders have been passed or communicated. Despite this, petitioner submits that attempt is now being made to draw the line through the eastern boundary of the property. 3. When a person affected by the drawing of the line raises WPC 23206/09 :2 : his objections, statute requires that respondents 3 and 4 should get the obstruction removed by an order passed by the District Magistrate exercising the powers under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act, 2003. In this case, going by the pleadings in this writ petition, the 1st respondent has not so far passed orders on Ext.P5 considering Exts.P6 and P8 objections. Therefore, as at present, if no such order has been passed respondents 3 and 4 cannot draw line affecting the petitioner's property. 4. Having regard to the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (1) That the 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P5 in the light of Exts.P6 and P8 and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. (2) It is clarified that until orders are passed as above, respondents 3 and 4 shall not draw the line affecting the petitioner's property in any manner. (3) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1, 3 and 4 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp