Dismissed

O.M.Raghavan v. the Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod

Kerala HC19 Jun 2015WP(C)/11195/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the electricity line layout. The bench found no illegality in the order passed under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act and noted the petitioners had not consistently raised their stand.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as there was no illegality found in the impugned order.

O.M.Raghavan Vs the Additional District Magistrate… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/29TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 11195 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. O.M.RAGHAVAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/o TACHAN RAMAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVALAPPU, CHERUVATHUR P.O. HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶8

2. T.SAVITHRI, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.LATE O.M.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVALAPPU CHERUVATHUR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU

¶10

SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD, VIDYANAGAR P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 123.

¶13

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION PILICODE, CHERUVATHUR P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN : 671 313

¶14

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, CHERUVATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN : 671 313

¶15

4. T.PADMANABHAN, S/O.TACHAN POZHUTHAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVALAPPU CHERUVATHUR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN : 671 313

¶16

R1&3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB R2 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB R4 BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 11195 of 2013 (Y)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 11/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVATUR. EXHIBIT P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 11/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVATHUR. EXHIBIT P3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDET TO THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P4 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 10/4/2013 EXHIBIT P5 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/4/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH, J

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(C).No.11195 of 2013

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2015

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioners only wanted the electric line to

¶34

be drawn along the boundary of their property. This is discernible from the following observations contained in Ext.P5 order of the first respondent. “Respondents have stated that if the existing post at the property of Sri.Ravi is shifted to the boundary line, there would not be loss of improvements”.

¶35

The petitioners now want the electric line to be drawn outside the boundaries of their property. They contend that the electricity line can be drawn along the paddy field lying adjacent. No such contention is seen raised before the first respondent. The paddy fields belong to strangers who have not also been impleaded in the proceedings.

¶36

I do not find any illegality in Ext.P5 order passed in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

¶37

W.P.(C).No.11195 of 2013

¶38

¶39

The first respondent has passed the order on the basis of

¶40

the relevant inputs which cannot be faulted with.

¶41

The Writ Petition fails. Dismissed.

¶42

Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶43

O.M.Raghavan v. the Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.M.Raghavan v. the Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod

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

Radhamany Amma Vs State of Kerala

Travancore Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.M. Lukose Vs the Assistant Engineer

P.B.Abdul Salam Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Rr Holiday Homes Pvt.Ltd Vs K.S.E.B, Rep. by Its Secretary

India Telecom Infra Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board