IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26624 of 2008(T)
1. ALEX THOMAS, GENERAL MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAMPADY
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. M.N.NARAYANAN NAIR, MANAMTHANATHU,
4. SURESH, THEMBALLIYIL, VELLOOR P.O.
5. K.A.ABRAHAM, KARIMBANOOR, VELLOOR P.O.
6. VIJAYAMMA.M.NAIR, MANAMTHANATHU,
7. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, MANAMTHANATHU,
8. M.N.SAJIKUMAR, MANAMTHANATHU,
9. P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, NAGATHALLIL,
10. VINOD VARGHESE, THAKIDIYIL, VELLOOR P.O
11. P.V.MATHES, PUTHENPARAMBIL, VELLOOR P.O.
12. M.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
13. K.M.THOMAS, KANNOTHARA, VELLOOR P.O.
14. N.R.LEELAMMA, MANATHANATHU,VELLOOR P.O.
15. CHACKO JOSEPH, PATAKKAPARAMBU,
16. T.A.DIVAKARAN, THAMPALIL (H)
17. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (K.S.E.B)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.SAGEER
For Respondent :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.26624 OF 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner wants to get electricity line drawn to his
factory premises. When the neighbouring persons obstructed,
the K.S.E.B moved the Additional District Magistrate and
obtained Ext.P2 order to remove the obstruction. Even
thereafter, the obstruction continued. Though the petitioner
moved the police, they did not extend any help. The petitioner
points out that the challenge made against Ext.P2 before this
Court has already been repelled and therefore the said order
has become final. So, the police are bound to extend necessary
protection to the K.S.E.B. officials to draw the line, it is
submitted.
2. The learned counsel appearing for some of the party
respondents submitted that the line is drawn through the land
vested in the Local Grama Panchayat without getting its
permission. Therefore, the drawal of line is illegal in view of
Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is contended.
W.P.(C) No.26624/2008 2
3. In view of the said contention, we directed the
petitioner to implead the Panchayat. On impleadment, the
Panchayat appeared through counsel and submitted that it has
no objection in drawing the line.
4. In view of the above position, the writ petition is liable
to be allowed. If there is any obstruction to the drawing of the
line which is permitted as Ext.P2, the petitioner may bring it to
the notice of the respondents 1 and 2. In that event, the said
officers shall remove the obstruction.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
ps