IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17632 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAJO MATHEW, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.V.V.MATHEW, RESIDING AT VENGURAN HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZH, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PINCODE - 686691. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PAILY VARKEY, NAMBICHANKUDY HOUSE, KEERANPARA P.O., OONJAPPARA, PINCODE - 689691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.17632/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO.3407/2010 DATED 28.5.2010 OF KOTHAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF PROPERTIES THEREIN. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.17632 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear the second respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed mainly contending that ignoring the objections raised by the petitioner the first respondent is taking steps to draw electricity line through the petitioner's property for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residence of the second respondent. The relief sought in this writ petition is for an order directing the first respondent not to trespass into the petitioner's property or draw electricity line through the property without following the procedure prescribed under the law. 3. A Full Bench of this Court has in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. v. KSEB, 1970 KLT 872 held that when the Assistant Engineer, who is exercising the powers of the W.P(C) NO.17632/2011 -:2:- Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, is obstructed in the exercise of the power conferred on him, he has to move the District Magistrate for permission to exercise that power. The Full Bench held that if any tangible form of objection is raised, the Assistant Engineer or other officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board exercising the power of the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act should move the District Magistrate for permission to exercise that power. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the first respondent can exercise his powers under the Telegraph Act only after obtaining permission from the District Magistrate. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: If as on today the electricity line has not been drawn across or through the petitioner's property for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residence of the second respondent the line shall not be drawn or energised without obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.17632 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 30th June, 2011