High Court Kerala High Court

Prasanna vs Additional District Magistrate on 29 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Prasanna vs Additional District Magistrate on 29 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18395 of 2007(M)


1. PRASANNA, AGED 42 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. RAGHAVAN, S/O.VELUTHU KUNJU,

4. MOHANAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :29/11/2010

 O R D E R
                          C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
            - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    W.P.(C)No. 18395 OF 2007
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed in the year 2007 raising

grievances against Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent

under section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with section

51 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As per the said order permission

was granted to draw over head electric line through the pathway

leading to the property of the petitioner for the purpose of

drawing electric lines to the property of respondents 3 and 4.

Evidently, as early as on July 2007, the line was drawn as

proposed. The order dated 5.7.2007 of this Court would reveal

that this Court has granted liberty to the KSEB to charge the line

and subsequently it was energised. At this distance of time

especially in the absence of any patent perverseness or illegality in

the order permitting the second respondent to draw line for the

purpose of granting electric connection to respondents 3 and 4

Ext.P5 order cannot be interfered with. The petitioner has failed

to bring out any reason for interference. Therefore, there is no

merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.

However, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner moving

WPC.No.18395/2010
: 2 :

the authority under section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act,

1885 in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

jma
//true copy//

P.A to Judge