IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34796 of 2010(Y)
1. ANNAMMA KURIAKOSE,KILITHATTIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. POWER GRID CORPORATION LTD,REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/THE DISTRICT
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 34796 of 2010 Y
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the
Additional District Magistrate on 27-08-2010 in pursuance to
the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C)
No.21330/2009, in which, petitioner’s son was the second
petitioner. That writ petition was disposed of directing the
District Magistrate to consider a petition in terms of the
provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, for the
removal of obstruction offered by the petitioners therein
against drawing an electric line. On examination of the claim
of the second petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21330/2009, the
District Magistrate held in Ext.P3 order that he was only a
member of an Action Council and that his property was not
affected by the drawal of the line. For that reason the District
Magistrate did not hear the petitioner’s son and passed the
order.
W.P.(C) No.34796/10
: 2 :
2. In my view, person who is injuriously affected by
the drawing of the line has a right to object the drawal of an
electric line. If such a person raises an objection, he will be
entitled to be heard in a proceedings before the District
Magistrate also. In this case, the petitioner’s son did not have
any property to be affected by drawal of the line and it was
therefore, the District Magistrate did not hear him. I cannot
find fault with the District Magistrate for such a view that has
been taken. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is true
that the petitioner’s property is affected but, however, there is
no case that the petitioner had raised any objection either by
filing an application or otherwise, before any authority against
the drawing of the line.
3. That apart, Ext.P3 order was passed way back on
27-08-2010 and it is challenged only now. In my view, the
challenge at this distance of time is highly belated.
4. Petitioner has a complaint that Ext.P6 notice has
been issued informing that the trees mentioned will be cut and
W.P.(C) No.34796/10
: 3 :
removed. According to the petitioner, unless compensation is
fixed, further steps based on the notice cannot be proceeded
with. However, it is seen from Ext.P7 notice issued by the
Special Tahsildar(L.A.) that he is proposing to inspect the
property of the petitioner for fixing compensation. Therefore,
that contention also has no merit and is to be rejected. I do
not see any merit in the writ petition.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge