IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18937 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MOHANAN P.K,, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTY, THANAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, ATHOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYTHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE-673315 3. PATHUMMA, 3/582A,PATTUPURAKUZHIYIL,ATHOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673315 ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 18937/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.125/1991 DATED 17.1.1991 OF THE CHEMANCHERRY SUB REGISTRY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LAWYER NOTICE DATED 27.3.2008 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S REPLY DATED 2.4.2008 TO EXT.P2 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LAWYER NOTICE DATED 13.5.2008 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S REPLY DATED 21.5.2008 TO EXT.P4 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 7.4.2010 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.5.2010 OF THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ATHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 4.12.2004 EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF EXT.P1 PROPERTY, EXISTING LINE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY AND THE FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PATHWAY RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18937 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who owns a parcel of land described in Ext.P1 sale deed, has filed this writ petition for an order directing respondents 1and 2 to shift the electricity line passing through the said property. It is stated that the electricity line was drawn in the year 2008 through the petitioner's property to give electricity connection to the residence of the third respondent. The petitioner states that when he objected to the line being drawn and caused notice to be issued through his lawyer immediately after the line was drawn and energised, a reply notice was issued stating that the line was drawn as per the permission granted by the District Magistrate. The petitioner further proceeds to state that such permission was not obtained and that the line was drawn in a fraudulent manner. 2. It is however evident from the materials on record that till date the petitioner has not moved the competent authority in the Kerala State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) under section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 requesting that authority to remove the electricity line/electricity posts from his property. Under sub section (2) of section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, if the telegraph authority omits to comply with the requisition, the person making it may apply to the District Magistrate with whose jurisdiction the property is situated to order the removal or alteration of the line. The petitioner has WPC No.18937/2011 2 admittedly not resorted to such a remedy. The question whether the line was illegally drawn or whether the petitioner did not object when the line was drawn and whether he should meet the expenses for shifting are all matters which will have to be decided by the District Magistrate, if the official respondents do not allow the request made by the petitioner for shifting of the line. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner should move the competent authority in the Board in writing in terms of sub section (1) of section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the remedy available to him under section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps