IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29728 of 2008(L)
1. JOHNKUTTY K.S.,AGED 47 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
4. XAVIER, MADATHIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O.,
5. THE ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.R.JAGADEESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :25/11/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 29728 OF 2008 L
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. It is an order under
section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Additional
District Magistrate has granted permission for drawing line along
the alignment ABCDE that is drawing the line after erecting an
additional post in the south western corner of the property of the
petitioner and bank of the thodu under section 16(1) of the Indian
Telegraph Act.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
standing counsel for the Board, learned counsel for the 4th
respondent and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel
for the petitioner would submit that there were two proposals. The
second proposal is not seen considered. The second proposal
would involve the drawing of line over the property of one Sheeba
for 4 meters and the rest of the line drawn across the pathway. He
further submits that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the
petitioner is proposing to construct a house in the property and he
WPC.29728/08
: 2 :
cannot construct a house for his daughter, if the line is drawn as
allowed. It is submitted by respondent that only 7 meters of OH
line will pass through the property of the petitioner.
3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the
petitioner and Sheeba have opposed both proposals. There is no
pleading in the writ petition to show that that is not correct.
Whatever that be, even assuming the petitioner did not oppose the
second proposal, Smt.Sheeba is not a party in the writ petition.
Apparently, 4 meters line would have to be drawn through the
property of Sheeba and length of nearly 21 meters of OH line will
pass through the so called pathway. Having considered the facts,
I would think that this is not a fit case where I should interfere in
Article 226. I note the fact that in the course of argument the
petitioner had pointed out to the Magistrate another alignment
which was also examined. This court will not sit as an appellate
court and in such circumstances, I see no merit in the writ petition
and it is dismissed.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks