Dismissed

R.K.Raghavan v. the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

Kerala HC22 Nov 2011WP(C)/3477/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, Manager of an aided school, challenged the drawing of an electricity service line through school property without notice. The court held that authorities have power under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Section 67 of the Electricity Act 2003 to place lines unless obstructed or resisted. Discussed requirement of District Magistrate orders under Section 65 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Rights to approach District Magistrate or appropriate authority for shifting the line reserved.

R.K.Raghavan Vs the Assistant Engineer, Kseb — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 3477 of 2010(H)

¶6

------------------------PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-------------------

¶8

R.K.RAGHAVAN, S/O. ANDY, AGED 62 YEARS, MANAGER, KUTHUPARA HIGH SCHOOL THOKKILANGADI, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN

¶10

SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------------

¶13

1. THE ASSISTATNT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUTHUPARAMBA, 670643.

¶14

2. ASSISTATNT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B, KUTHUPARAMBA.

¶15

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, THALASSERY.

¶16

ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED

¶17

-----------------------ADDL.R4. K.C.ROSAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.CHERIYAN, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, P.O.NIRMALAGIRI. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IA NO.2055/2010 DATED 19.02.2010 .

¶18

ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED

¶19

----------------------ADDL.R5. SRI.FAIZAL, SAFA MANZIL, THOKKILANGADI, NEAR KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERI TALUIK; IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 271.11 IN IA.1191/11

¶20

R1-3 BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM SC, K.S.E.B ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC ADDL.R5. BY ADV.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 3477 of 2010(H)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

------------

¶26

PETITIOER'S EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.P1. CPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.4.2009 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 3. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 20.5.2009 SENT TO THE 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶29

EXT.R5(A). COPY OF SKETCH SHOWING THE HOUSE AND DRAWAL OF SERVICE LINE.

¶30

EXT.R5(B). COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE, COMPROMISE PETITION AND THE PLAN ATTACHED TO IT.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

WP(C).NO. 3477 of 2010

¶36

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioner is the Manager of an aided school. He is

¶39

approaching this court aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 to 3 in drawing a service line through the property of the school for providing Electric connection to respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioner, the service line was drawn without issuing any or intimation to the petitioner, at a time when he was not in station. Through Ext.P1 request the 2^nd respondent was approached to withdraw from drawing the service line through the property of the school. Since no action was taken the petitioner had caused a lawyer notice as evident from Ext.P2. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a declaration to the effect that the drawing of service line through the property was illegal. Inter alia he is seeking direction to the 1^st respondent to remove the line from the property in question.

¶40

Sri.K.V.Pavithran, learned counsel appearing for the

¶41

WPC.3477/2010

¶42

¶43

petitioner contended that the statute provides a right to the petitioner to resist or to obstruct drawing of any telegraph line through his property. Drawing of the service line without notice to the petitioner at a time when he was not in station amounts to denial and infringement of the said right of the petitioner. Therefore he seeks interference of this court for removal of the line. The additional respondent No.5 is the assignor of the property to which the line is drawn. The 5^th respondent, through the counter affidavit contended that, the allegation with respect to drawal of line through the property of the petitioner, is totally incorrect. According to him, the service line in question was drawn only across a public road, without causing any obstruction to any other properties. There exists a civil litigation between the 4^th respondent, the previous owner, and the petitioner. An injunction suit filed by the 4^th respondent as OS.No.299/90 before the Munsiff Court Koothuparamba, is settled out of court and as per terms of the compromise certain properties were ear marked and exchanged between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent. According to the 5^th

¶44

WPC.3477/2010

¶45

¶46

respondent the line in question is drawn only through properties settled in favour of the 4^th respondent as per the terms of the compromise. However, the said contention was disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and according to him the line in question is drawn through property owned by the petitioner himself.

¶47

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 it is stated that the line in question is drawn only through a pathway and it is done on the bonafide belief that it is a public road. Further it is contended that, on receipt of Exts.P1 and P2 the beneficiary was requested to produce necessary documents to show ownership of the property. From the judgment of the civil court produced, which is a compromise decree, it is revealed that the property stands in the name of the beneficiary and the land through which the line is drawn is only a nadavazhi (pathway).

¶48

While considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that, there is no need to adjudicate upon the controversy as to whether the alleged service line is drawn through the property of

¶49

WPC.3477/2010

¶50

¶51

the petitioner or not. It is evident that the petitioner had raised complaint as per Exts. P1 and P2, only after the service line was drawn by respondents 1 to 3. Under section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, read with section 67 of the Electricity Act 2003, it is evident that respondents 1 to 3 are vested with power to place any electric line under, over, along or across any immovable property subject to restrictions imposed under section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The authority is bound to get orders from the District Magistrate only if the same is obstructed or resisted by anybody. Since there was no resistance or obstruction at the time when the line in question was drawn, I do not find any illegality with respect to the action taken by respondents 1 to 3. The irregularity raised by the counsel to the petitioner, to the extent of lack of notice does not deserve merit in view of the absolute power conferred upon the authority, by virtue of section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

¶52

Sri. Santhalingam, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 had pointed out that if the petitioner has any grievance regarding placing of the service line, he can approach

¶53

WPC.3477/2010

¶54

¶55

the appropriate authority in the Board to seek shifting of the line. He also pointed out that inspite of raising request as per Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner has not approached the District Magistrate seeking to invoke provisions contained under section 65 of the India Telegraph Act.

¶56

Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted in view of the provisions contained in the relevant statute, as mentioned above. While dismissing this writ petition I make it clear that rights of the petitioner if any available under law, to approach the District Magistrate or the right to approach the appropriate authority under the Board for shifting of the above line will stand reserved .

¶57

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE

pmn/

WPC.3477/2010 6

WPC.3477/2010 7

WPC.3477/2010 8

R.K.Raghavan v. the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.K.Raghavan v. the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala and 3 Others

Lasina P.V.C. Vs Calicut University

Dr.Seena N.K Vs State of Kerala

A.P.Sulaiman Vs Kerala State Human Rights Commission and

Devassia P.J. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Consumers Association, Palakkad Vs Union of India