High Court Kerala High Court

Madhavankutty Nair vs The District Collector And on 22 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Madhavankutty Nair vs The District Collector And on 22 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 193 of 2008()


1. MADHAVANKUTTY NAIR, EDATTUKANDATHIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (PHONES),

3. SHRI.P.V.GEORGE, PALATHANATTU PADAVIL,

4. THOMAS.P.J., PARAYIL, DO. DO.

5. SAVITHRI AMMA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.EASWARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :22/01/2008

 O R D E R

J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ.

————————————–
Writ Appeal No. 193 of 2008

—————————————
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008

Judgment

Koshy,J.

Appellant raised objections when telephone line was

drawn to the residential premises of respondents 3 to 8 from a post

in his property. The above obstruction was removed by first

respondent exercising his power under section 16 (1) of the Indian

Telegraphs Act. The above was challenged by the appellant by

filing O.P. No.21510 of 1999. It was dismissed and Writ Appeal

No.2105 of 2002 was filed. The writ appeal was also dismissed.

Thereafter, he approached the first respondent suggesting an

alternate route. That route was considered by the respondent in

detail and that route was rejected. First respondent came to the

conclusion that the alternate route suggested by the

appellant/petitioner is of 2 k.m. distance and it is not feasible. It is a

finding of fact. The learned single Judge found that no grounds are

made out for interfering in the above finding of fact and the writ

petition was dismissed. The learned single Judge also found that

there is no merit in the suggestion made by the appellant/petitioner.

W.A.No. 193/2008 2

We fully agree with the view of the learned single Judge. On the

facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the finding of fact

entered by the first respondent need not be interfered by using the

extra-ordinary powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India

since there is no patent illegality or perverse finding. The appeal is

dismissed.

J.B.Koshy
Judge

K. Hema
Judge

vaa

W.A.No. 193/2008 3

J.B. KOSHY
AND
K.HEMA ,JJ.

————————————-
Writ Appeal No.193 of 2008

————————————-

Judgment

Dated:22nd January, 2008