Annamma Kuriakose vs Power Grid Corporation Ltd on 19 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Annamma Kuriakose vs Power Grid Corporation Ltd on 19 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *