IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 12604 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MUJEEB REHMAN, ULLERICHALIL, OORALLOOR P.O., ARIKULAM, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN SRI.VINODKUMAR SRI.JIMMY GEORGE SRI.A.S.BENOY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SMT.MADHAVI, VYSATHKANNI, OORALLOOR P.O. ARIKULAM, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTICITY BOARD, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.12604 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 7th December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the absolute owner in possession of 11.250 cents of land comprised in Survey No.26/32/I B 2 of Arikkulam Village filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the third respondent. The first respondent who is residing on the western side of the petitioner's property submitted an application for electric connection to her residential building. Thereupon, it was proposed to draw line to her residential building through the property of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said proposal the petitioner has raised objections. In the light of the objections raised by the petitioner the second respondent submitted a complaint before the third respondent in terms of section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The impugned order viz., Ext.P2 order was been passed thereon after hearing the petitioner as also respondents 1 and 2, herein. 2. On 8.4.2010 when this matter came up for admission, after issuing notice on admission to the respondents, this Court passed an interim order to maintain status quo. Though the first respondent who is WP(C).No.12604/2010 2 the beneficiary of Ext.P2 order received notice in this proceedings, she has not chosen to appear in this proceedings. Therefore, this matter is being considered on merits. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent and also learned Government Pleader. In terms of Ext.P2 order electric line was already drawn through the property of the petitioner. However, it is yet to be energised in view of the interim order. The contention of the petitioner is that drawing of lines in the manner it is drawn pursuant to Ext.P2 order would cause considerable inconveniences to the petitioner as it virtually passes over the property of the petitioner making further construction in the property impossible. The further contention of the petitioner is that inconveniences and hardships to the petitioner would be diminished in case an additional electric post is installed in his property and the line is drawn through the boundary of his property. Shifting of electric line in the manner suggested by the petitioner is a matter which could be considered under section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act (for short `the Act'). In the circumstances, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent authority with such a prayer in terms of section 17 of the Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case of receipt of such a petition the competent authority shall consider WP(C).No.12604/2010 3 the same in terms of section 17 of the Act and pass orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a petition from the petitioner. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge