Petitioner challenged ADM's order directing an electric line through his pathway via writ petition. Court held natural justice was not violated as all parties were heard and no prejudice existed due to respondent's third-party easement rights, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 13287 of 2016 (I)
PETITIONER :
THOMAS KOCHU VARKEY, S/O.THOMAS IDIKKULA, AGED 72 YEARS, ATTUMALIL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MELPADAM P.O., MANNAR, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT - 689 627.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.J.JOY SMT.VALSAMMA KURIAN JOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ALAPUZHA, ALAPUZHA P.O., PIN - 690 501.
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOLLAKADAVU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 509.
3. K.KURIAN KOSHY, KALARIKKATTU HOUSE, MELPADAOM P.O., MANNAR, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT - 689 627.
4. K.J.CHERIAN, KOODARATHIL HOUSE, MELPADAOM P.O., MANNAR, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT - 689 627.
R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.P.PRADEEP R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB R3 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SMT.ANEY PAUL
R4 BY ADVS. SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 13287 of 2016 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:
R4(A) COPY OF THE LETTER ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 18/10/2016.
ANNEX R2(A) COPY OF THE SKETCH FOR SHIFTING THE LINE.
ANNEX R2(B) COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ROUTE FOR SHIFTING OF THE LINE AS WELL AS FOR PROVIDING NEW CONNECTION TO THE FORTH RESPONDENT
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
=============== W.P. (C) No. 13287 of 2016
==================
Dated this, the 24th day of October, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P8, an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate by which direction had been issued to draw electric line through a pathway. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the order had been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the pathway is a private pathway and merely for the reason that there is an easement right for the 3rd respondent, without the consent or permission of the petitioner, the electric line cannot be drawn through the said pathway. That apart, petitioner is not a beneficiary to the drawal of the line. Petitioner submits that earlier an electric line was drawn from the property of the 4th respondent to the building of the 3rd respondent and also a pump house of the 3rd respondent through the property of the 4th respondent. He sought for shifting of the electric line on the ground that it causes inconvenience for construction of the building. The matter was enquired into and referred to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The 1st respondent passed an
W.P(C) No.13287/16
-:2:-
order on 6/5/2015 by which a decision was taken to draw the line through the property of the 4th respondent by shifting the line through the property of the 4th respondent to another area. It is submitted that while Ext.P4 order stood as such, without any further notice, when a clarification is sought for by the Board, Ext.P8 order is passed. It is therefore submitted that without any change in circumstances, ADM had revoked Ext.P4 and a new line had been fixed through the pathway belonging to the petitioner.
W.P(C) No.13287/16
-:3:-
are technically feasible, but as far as the present line is concerned, namely in terms of Ext.P8, it goes through the pathway to which the 3rd respondent has easement right.
W.P(C) No.13287/16
-:4:-
show that all the parties including the petitioner were heard and thereafter the order had been passed.
W.P(C) No.13287/16
-:5:-
through the proposed area in terms of Ext.P8. Admittedly, the line is drawn through a pathway in which the 3rd respondent has easement right. Earlier, when the line was drawn through the property of the 4th respondent, 3rd respondent had only one power connection. Now he intends to construct another building in which the power connection is sought for. It is at that stage that the direction had been issued in terms of Ext.P8. When the 3rd respondent has got a right of way through the pathway in question, petitioner cannot insist that line cannot be drawn through the said pathway. Ultimately the question to be considered in terms of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is whether the objection raised is justifiable or not. When the Board officials had found that the particular route suggested by them is feasible, then the question is whether the objection raised is valid or not. In the case on hand, the ADM was well aware of the objection raised by the petitioner in regard to drawal of line through the pathway and despite that a decision has been taken stating that the objection is unjustifiable.
W.P(C) No.13287/16
-:6:-
Writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp24/10/2016
//True Copy//
P.S to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order passing the electric line through the petitioner's pathway violated principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226 when the line is drawn through a pathway where the respondent has easement rights.
Whether the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the drawal of the line is justifiable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THOMAS KOCHU VARKEY
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPUZHA
THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB
K.KURIAN KOSHY
K.J.CHERIAN
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
