Allowed

Salim K.H v. the District Collector Idukki

Kerala HC4 Feb 2019WP(C)/2738/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court upheld the KSEB's reference of an electric line alignment dispute to the District Magistrate under the Indian Telegraph Act. The judgment directed the Magistrate to commence proceedings and conclude the matter within one month of receiving the order, precluding any extension.

What did the court decide?

Reference to DM and order to proceed under S.17 Telegraph Act upheld; Adjunct Magistrate directed to conclude proceedings within one month.

Salim K.H Vs the District Collector Idukki — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2738 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SALIM K.H AGED 58 YEARS S/O. HASSAN RAWTHER, RESIDING AT KOLOTH HOUSE, ANACHAL

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI PIN 685 561

¶11

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI PIN-685 561

¶12

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VELLATHUVAL POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 563

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSEB, (ELECTRICAL SECTION), CHITHIRAPURAM-685 565

¶14

5 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRIC SECTION, CHITHIRAPURAM-685 565

¶15

6 SENAJ K.S KOLOTHU VEEDU, ANACHAL-691 306

¶16

7 SINESH M.M. MATHIRAMPALLIL VEEDU, ANACHAL-691 306 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶17

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR-SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 2738 of 2019

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has earlier approached this Court and obtained Ext.P9 judgment, wherein, the following directions have been issued.

¶23

a. I direct respondent No. 3, which is the Competent Authority of

¶24

the KSEB in this case, to take up Ext.P6 application and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to any other person who may be effected and to consider change of alignment of the three phase line traveling adjacent to the petitioner's property, if it is otherwise legally permissible without any delay.

¶25

b. Needless to say, if anybody objects to this revised line as proposed by the petitioner in Ext.P6, the Competent Authority will be obligated to refer the matter to the concerned District Magistrate under Sec.17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, so that the said Authority can finally take a decision after affording all parties opportunities as in statutorily warranted.

¶26

c. I clarify that if there are no objections to the alignment now proposed in Ext.P6, then the Competent Authority will change the alignment at the cost of the petitioner not later than 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

The petitioner says, that the KSEB has now referred the matter, through Ext.P13 to the Additional District Magistrate under the

¶28

WP(C).No. 2738 of 2019

¶29

¶30

Indian Telegraph Act, presumably under the mistaken impression that what was directed by this Court was to make such a reference and he challenges the said order as being untenable and without purpose.

¶31

Sri. Mathew John, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends vociferously, that there is no real dispute between his client and the persons shown in Ext.P13 and that the alleged objection raised by the said persons are completely illusive and untenable. He says that, in fact, one of them is even willing to file an affidavit before this Court to the effect that he has no objections. After saying so, Sri. Mathew John adds that the whole issue can be easily resolved by the KSEB themselves, by merely putting an angle arm on the existing electric post, so that the line can then be deviated to a small degree, thus allowing the petitioner to have the benefit of the connection, while the alleged objections raised would become completely unnecessary of adjudication.

¶32

He also says that the petitioner has made two alternative proposals before the KSEB, which are not objected to by the persons shown in Ext.P13 and that the KSEB could have easily accepted one of those, without having to make a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, as has been done through Ext.P13.

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No. 2738 of 2019

¶35

The learned standing counsel for the KSEB submits that, as is obvious from the afore submissions made by Sri. Mathew John, there exists certain disputes between the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7, and that the KSEB was therefore, justified, going by the directions in my judgment afore extracted, to refer the matter to the Additional District Magistrate. He says, this is the only manner in which the disputes between the parties can be resolved, one way or the other legally.

¶36

Sri. G. Sreekumar (Chelur), the learned counsel for the 7^th respondent, affirms that there are disputes between his client and the petitioner and he says therefore, that such disputes can only be evaluated through the mechanism under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act, as has been done through Ext.P13 order. He, therefore, says that Ext.P13 order is irreproachable.

¶37

On a consideration of the afore submissions, I asked the Senior Government Pleader the time frame within which the Additional District Magistrate, the 2^nd respondent herein, will be in a position to consider the reference made through Ext.P13 and to complete the proceedings; to which, she says that a period of one month will be necessary. She says that the 2^nd respondent will take up the reference and dispose it of in

¶38

¶39

WP(C).No. 2738 of 2019

¶40

terms of law, within that time frame.

¶41

When I assess the submissions made before me by Sri. Mathew John, juxtaposed by the stand taken by the KSEB and by Sri. G. Sreekumar (Chelur), it is indubitable that there are certain disputes between the parties and therefore, that the KSEB will not be in a position to take a side one way or the other, without making a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

¶42

In any event of the matter, I have already made it very clear in my earlier judgment, namely Ext.P9, that if there exists any objections to the revised line, then the KSEB will be obligated to refer the matter to the concerned District Magistrate under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act. I, therefore, cannot find Ext.P13 to be in any manner illegal and I consequently, deem it appropriate to allow the reference to take its course as per law.

¶43

In summation and taking note of the submissions made before me by the learned senior Government Pleader, I direct the 2^nd respondent to immediately commence action based on the reference made through Ext.P13 and complete the process, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶44

WP(C).No. 2738 of 2019

¶45

¶46

I make it clear that the said Authority will not be entitled to seek any further extension of time and that he will have to complete the process within the time granted herein without making any prayer for extension or modification of this judgment in future.

¶47

To enable the 2^nd respondent to have an expeditious disposal of the matter as ordered herein, I direct the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7, to appear before the Additional District Magistrate on 08/02/2019 at 11 am in his office and the said Authority will commence proceedings on that day and thereafter issue appropriate orders within the time granted herein.

¶48

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

Ns //true copy// Pa to Judge

¶53

WP(C).No. 2738 of 2019

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTED BY THE P DASAPPAN.	SALE DEED DATED 6/6/2005 ETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE VIL	STOP MEMO DATED 9/6/2017 LAGE OFFICER, KUNJITHANNI
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE	OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 2ND	STOP MEMO DATED 10/11/2018 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED TO THE	PETITION DATED 12/11/2018 DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 12/11/2018 SUBMIT	APPLICATION DATED TED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 12/11/18 ISSUED B THE PETITIONER.	COMMUNICATION DATED Y THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER.	COSENT DATED 14/11/2018 RELATIVE OF THE
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THIS HON'BLE C	JUDGMENT DATED 29/11/2018 OURT IN WP(C) NO. 38494/18
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED ISSUED BY	REPLY DATED 5/12/2018 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE 27/12/2018 ISSUED	HEARING NOTICE DATED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY.	COPY OF SKETCH OF THE
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED TO THE PET	LETTER DATED 11/1/2019 ITIONER BY THE AE.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE 16/1/2019 SUBMITT	REPRESENTATION DATED ED TO THE ADM.

Salim K.H v. the District Collector Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim K.H v. the District Collector Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Kerala State Small Industries Association Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran Achari Vs the Appellate Authority

Lijo Joseph Vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd.

Asha Sudarshanan, Vs State of Kerala

Athikal Muhammed Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Ahamed Kunhi K., Vs Union of India