IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36420 of 2010(B)
1. SAFIYA HAMSA, W/O.K.A.HAMSA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,
4. M.K.MUSTAFA, MANELIL HOUSE,
5. M.K.MUHAMMED, MANELIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.G.BASIL
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :14/12/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.36420 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved
by the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in the
matter of shifting of an electrical line drawn over the
property of the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner in
possession of 8.880 cents of property comprised in
Sy.No.168/3A of Chengamanad Village. There is already
an existing overhead electric line and a weather proof
line over the property. It is for shifting the aforesaid line
that the petitioner has approached the respondents 1
and 2. Since respondents 1 and 2 failed to take
appropriate action thereon, the petitioner has
approached the third respondent District Collector. It is
submitted that on receipt of Ext.P3 no steps were taken
by the 3rd respondent in the matter.
W.P.(C)No.36420/2010
: 2 :
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for
respondents 1 and 2.
3. In view of the order I propose to pass in this
writ petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to
respondents 4 and 5 at this stage. Essentially, the
grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the inaction
on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to shift the lines
that pass over the petitioner’s property despite repeated
requests. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the
inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in the
matter of shifting of an existing electric line, the remedy
of the petitioner is to approach the District Magistrate in
terms of Section 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
Ext.P3 cannot be construed as an application submitted
in terms of aforesaid terms. This writ petition is,
W.P.(C)No.36420/2010
: 3 :
therefore, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to
approach the competent authority under Section 17(2) of
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In case, the petitioner
prefers such a petition in terms of Section 17(2) of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment the same
shall be considered by the said competent authority
before whom it is filed expeditiously, at any rate, within a
period of two months from the date of its receipt with
notice to the petitioner, the concerned officials of the
Kerala State Electricity Board and also to other persons
who are likely to be affected.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
skj