IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15737 of 2009(J)
1. C.A.KURIAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.E.B.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 15737 OF 2009 (J)
=====================
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3, 4 and
5 are proceeding to draw an 11 KV line cutting across his
property. It is stated that although he has obtained a judgment
and decree from the Civil Court, respondents have moved the 2nd
respondent invoking his power under the Telegraph Act for
permitting them to draw the line. It is stated that in pursuance
thereof, petitioner was issued Ext.P4 notice calling upon him to
file his objections and that he filed Ext.P8 objections. In this writ
petition, what the petitioner complains is that the 2nd respondent
is likely to grant permission ignoring Ext.P8 objections and that
the respondents will draw the line immediately thereafter.
2. On the materials produced, I have no reason to think
that the 2nd respondent who is to exercise his powers under the
Indian Telegraph Act will ignore the objections filed by the
petitioner and blindly pass orders in favour of respondent Nos. 4
and 5. Being a statutory authority, the 2nd respondent is bound to
WPC 15737/09
:2 :
consider the objections and pass the order. Therefore, I am not
prepared to accept the case of the petitioner as pleaded in this
writ petition. Once order is passed, it will be open to the petitioner
to pursue his remedies, if he is aggrieved by the said order.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp