IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21677 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JALAJAKUMARI, W/O.SASEENDRAN NAIR, SREEDHARAVILASAM, VADAKKE JUNCTION, VILAPPILSALA, VILAPPILSALA P.O., VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1&3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.21677 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that she is the absolute owner of 10.94 ares of land in Sy.No.210/14-2 of Vilappil Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. According to her, she was issued Ext.P2 notice requiring her to cut and remove yielding trees standing in the land mentioned above, for drawing a 220KV line over the properties. Objecting to the proposal to draw the line, she filed Ext.P3 before the 2nd respondent, which has been received in the office of the 2nd respondent on 23.7.2009. It is stated that despite the pendency of Ext.P3 before the 2nd respondent, respondents 1 and 3 are proposing to draw line ignoring Ext.P3. It is in this circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. In terms of the provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act and Electricity Act, if obstruction to the WP(c).No.21677/09 2 drawing of line is offered, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the same and pass orders. In this case, in Ext.P3 such an application has been made by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, If that be so, until orders are passed on Ext.P3 by the 2nd respondent, respondents 1 and 3 cannot draw the line as proposed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 3. The 2nd respondent shall on the production of a copy of the judgment consider Ext.P3 with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is also directed that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 by the 2nd respondent, the line in question shall not be drawn over the property of the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 1 to 3 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.21677/09 3