Disposed

M.Mariyumma, v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Kerala HC21 Feb 2019WP(C)/3935/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition where a property owner challenged the erection of an electric tower on her land, the High Court of Kerala directed KSEB to refer the obstruction issue to the District Magistrate for a decision with an opportunity of hearing, as required by Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

What did the court decide?

Obligation imposed on KSEB to refer obstruction dispute to District Magistrate for decision within two weeks.

M.Mariyumma, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3935 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.MARIYUMMA, AGED 64 YEARS

¶8

W/O. ALAVI, VADAKKANGARA HOUSE, MANJAPPETTA-P.O, MNJERI-VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, TRANSGRID (NORTH), GOVT.PRESS-PO, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679122. 3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BORD LIMITED, MANJERI DIVISION, MANJERI-P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN676121.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R.- SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3935 of 2019

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Even though the petitioner has raised several allegations

¶20

and averments in this writ petition, at the crux of it, all her allegation is that she is legally entitled to obstruct and resist the erection of a new electric line and tower through her property being done without her permission.

¶21

Sri.Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, the learned standing counsel for the KSEB, on the contrary, submits that the line now being laid and the towers being erected are only through the right of way already vested in the KSEB because, there is an existing 66 KV line, which is now being upgraded to 110 KV. According to him, therefore, the petitioner's property is not, in any manner, prejudicially affected, because the existing 66 KV line or the area through which it runs, is alone now being used by the KSEB for upgradation.

¶22

Even though I hear the learned standing counsel for the KSEB as afore, the fact remains that under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, when a person obstructs or resists the exercise of the powers of the Telegraph Authority, as enumerated in Section 10 thereof, it is the District Magistrate, who has the power to permit the said Telegraph Authority to

¶23

WP(C).No. 3935 of 2019

¶24

¶25

exercise such powers. Obviously, therefore, it becomes incumbent upon the KSEB to refer the dispute or obstruction to the District Magistrate, who alone thereafter, can decide the matter, after hearing the petitioner.

¶26

When I disclosed my mind as afore at the Bar, Sri.Sudheer Ganesh Kumar, the learned standing counsel for the KSEB submitted that the KSEB will refer this issue to the concerned Additional District Magistrate and that the said Magistrate may be directed to consider the same expeditiously.

¶27

In view of the afore submissions, I direct the competent Authority of the KSEB to refer the obstruction/resistance now being made by the petitioner, to the competent District Magistrate, which Authority will thereafter, consider and take a decision thereon as per Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, after affording all parties sufficient opportunities, as is warranted in law, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶28

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

¶33

WP(C).No. 3935 of 2019

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-03-2017 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2017 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. NO.29169/2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26-09-2017. EXHIBIT P4 ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, PROPERTY OWNED BY KSEB, THE EXISTING 66 KV LINE, THE PROPOSED 110 KV LINE ETC. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-R3A THE TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 15/3/2017 EXHIBIT-R3B THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7/6/2018 EXHIBIT-R3C THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MANJERI POLICE STATION.

M.Mariyumma, v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mariyumma, v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

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

V.v.Vimal Singh, Vs the Trichur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Winston J.Stephen, Vs the Chief Manager (Authorized Officer)

Prasoon, Vs the Authorised Officer

Sadik V.J. Vs the District Collector

Rahana, Vs the Punjab National Bank

Radhamma P., Vs Authorized Officer