IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 22678 of 2010(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PUSHPANGADAN, SURENDRA VILASOM, MISSION KUNNU, THOLIKUZHY, ADAYAMON.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SRI.ANTONY SHYJU SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 003. 4. SULATHAMANI, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MISSION KUNNU, ADAYAMON.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 5. ARIFA BEEVI, D/O. LATE ALIYARU KUNJU, NAZEEM MANZIL, MISSION KUNNU, ATTUMBHAGOM, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE. TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 6. PAZHAYAKUNUMMEL GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 695 002. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN R6 BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 22678/2010-H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO. 1360/92 OF SRO KILIMANOOR. P2 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.290/2007 MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL DATED 19/01/2009. P3 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.115/2009ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL. P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22/07/2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.SI/74811/2008. P5 COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P4. P6 COPY OF THE ORDERNO.D.DIS.74811/08/SI DT.18/06/2009. P7 COPY OF THE SITE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 08/06/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.22678 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the absolute owner in possession of 19.5 cents of land in Sy.No.962/63 and 8.5 cents of land in Sy.No.962/3 of Pazhayakunnummel Village, filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the second respondent. Respondents 4 and 5 have applied for electric connection to their residential buildings to the third respondent. When it was proposed to draw the electric lines through the property belonging to the petitioner, he raised objection. Consequently, the same was referred before the first respondent in terms of Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act r/w Section 164(3) of the Electricity Act. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a notice of hearing. On receipt of Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 objection. It is thereafter that Ext.P6 order was passed. Admittedly, the first respondent is clothed with the power to decide the issue in terms of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. However, the said power is to be exercised with application of mind. Application of mind can be reflected only through the reasons given in the order concerned. A bare perusal of Ext.P6 would W.P.(C) NO.22678/2010 2 reveal it was passed without proper application of mind. The very purpose of site inspection and submission of a report pursuant thereto is to enable the authority to exercise power under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act to arrive at a proper decision. Ext.P7 cannot be described as a report at all. It did not speak of any inspection of the alternative route proposed by the petitioner therein. Since the issue involved is a matter which may affect the free enjoyment of one's property, the authorities concerned are expected to bestow serious consideration while exercising the power under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. Since it is evident that Ext.P7 is the basis for Ext.P6 report, it is only appropriate for the second respondent to conduct a site inspection and also to consider the feasibility of the alternative route suggested by the petitioner before passing an order in terms of 16(1) of the Act. To enable the second respondent to pass appropriate orders after fresh consideration, Ext. P6 is set aside. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the matter. It will be open to both the parties to raise all their contentions before the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel submitted that pursuant to Ext.P6 order, the electric line W.P.(C) NO.22678/2010 3 has already been drawn and energized. It is made clear that the said fact shall not stand in the way of fresh consideration of the matter, on merits. The second respondent shall pass orders after such consideration expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and all concerned parties. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation at all with respect to the merits of the rival contentions and also on the issue referred under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.22678/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.22678/2010 5