The High Court of Kerala refused interference in a writ petition challenging a direction issued to draw electric lines under the Indian Telegraph Act. The Court held that the impugned order was neither perverse nor illegal as all contentions were considered.
The writ petition was dismissed without granting any relief to the petitioner.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 838 of 2013 (D)
PETITIONER(S):
JAGADEESH. P.K., PATHITHOTTIYIL HOUSE, PADINJATTIRKARA P.O., KADAPLAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM -686 571.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY, SMT.SEEMA.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM -686 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, RAMAPURAM-686 570.
3. MOHANAN P.N., PAZHANILATH HOUSE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O., KADAPLAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM- 686 571.
R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN. R2 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 838 of 2013 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
============= W.P. (C) No. 838 of 2013
===================
Dated this, the 8th day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order by which direction has been issued to draw electric lines in exercise of power under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
does not cause any hindrance to the 1st respondent, who is the petitioner herein.
W.P(C) No.838/13
-:2:-
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp8/06/2016
//True Copy//
P.S to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional District Magistrate committed perversity or error in issuing direction to draw electric lines under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act.
Whether proper enquiry was conducted regarding the feasibility of the alternate route suggested by the third respondent.
Whether the challenged order causing hindrance to the first respondent warrants interference in the writ proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagadeesh. P.K.
The Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Ramapuram
Mohanan P.N.
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
