IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36420 of 2010(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SAFIYA HAMSA, W/O.K.A.HAMSA, AGED 37, RESIDING AT KARIPPAI HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA-6. BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHANGAMMANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 578. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHENGAMMANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 578. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 018. 4. M.K.MUSTAFA, MANELIL HOUSE, CHENGAMMANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 578. 5. M.K.MUHAMMED, MANELIL HOUSE, CHENGAMMANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 578. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.36420 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in the matter of shifting of an electrical line drawn over the property of the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.880 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.168/3A of Chengamanad Village. There is already an existing overhead electric line and a weather proof line over the property. It is for shifting the aforesaid line that the petitioner has approached the respondents 1 and 2. Since respondents 1 and 2 failed to take appropriate action thereon, the petitioner has approached the third respondent District Collector. It is submitted that on receipt of Ext.P3 no steps were taken by the 3rd respondent in the matter. W.P.(C)No.36420/2010 : 2 : 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 3. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to respondents 4 and 5 at this stage. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to shift the lines that pass over the petitioner's property despite repeated requests. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in the matter of shifting of an existing electric line, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the District Magistrate in terms of Section 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Ext.P3 cannot be construed as an application submitted in terms of aforesaid terms. This writ petition is, W.P.(C)No.36420/2010 : 3 : therefore, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In case, the petitioner prefers such a petition in terms of Section 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment the same shall be considered by the said competent authority before whom it is filed expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of its receipt with notice to the petitioner, the concerned officials of the Kerala State Electricity Board and also to other persons who are likely to be affected. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE skj