Disposed

Sunny Mathew v. Additional District Magistrate, Idukki

Kerala HC22 Aug 2016WP(C)/15127/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The highest court reserved the disposition of the writ petition. It concluded that where a dispute arises regarding the sufficiency of compensation for damage caused by an electrical line, the remedy lies with the District Court, not the Administrative Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the petitioner to approach the District Court.

Sunny Mathew Vs Additional District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2016/31ST SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15127 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

SUNNY MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, PUTHIYEDATH, THODUPUZHA 685 588.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI- 685 521.

¶11

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, THODUPUZHA 685 520.

¶12

3. SHEEBA ALEX, KOOTTUMALA,PUTHENPURA, PENSION BHAVAN ROAD, THODUPUZHA 685 589.

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, S.C R3 BY ADVS. SRI.C.M.TOMY

¶14

SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.MANU TOM SRI.BALU TOM

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 15127 of 2016 (M)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURS:

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF ORDER DATED 22/02/2016 ISSUED FROM ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI.

¶21

ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE ORDER SENT FROM COLLECTORATE DATED 05.03.2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT R3(A):	PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2583/2000 OF THODUPUZHA SRO.
EXHIBIT R3(B):	PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO. IF/09-10/2019 DATED 15.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THODUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT R3(C):	PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2010 IN A.S.NOS. 51,52 AND 53 OF 2009 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT R3(D):	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2013 IN O.S.NO. 83/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT R3(E):	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2014 IN O.S.NO. 83/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT R3(F):	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2015 IN O.S.NO. 83/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶28

W.P.(C).No.15127 of 2016

¶29

Dated this, the 22^nd day of August, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner has approached this Court contending that though he had suffered substantial damage on account of an electrical line being drawn through his property, he is not paid any compensation. According to the petitioner, the Additional District Magistrate was bound to consider his claim for compensation as well.

¶32

The District Magistrate's power is dealt with under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. But if the dispute is with reference to sufficiency of compensation to be paid, remedy of the petitioner is to approach the District Court under Section 16(3) of the Act. In the case on hand, the Board was of the view that the petitioner was not entitled for any compensation as he has not suffered any damage. Whether such a view taken by the Board is justified or not can be adjudicated only by the District Court who can even consider the question as to whether petitioner was entitled for compensation.

¶33

Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the District Court under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 claiming

¶34

W.P.(C).No.15127 of 2016

¶35

¶36

compensation as provided under the relevant statute in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶39

Sunny Mathew v. Additional District Magistrate, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Mathew v. Additional District Magistrate, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seethalekshmi R. Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Chandrika Kunhikkanan Vs the Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Muthoottu Mini Hotels Pvt.Ltd Vs State

C.a.Unnikrishnan Vs the Dist. Collector & 4 Ors.

Kerala State Rice Mills Owners Vs Kseb

Anju Ann Abraham Vs the Registrar Mahatma Gandhi University