Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 8TH MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 26173 of 2012 (V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. SMT.KULDU MARIYUM, W/O. UMMER, OTTATHAYYIL HOUSE, MACHIYIL, PADIYOTTUCHAL.
2. NARIKKODAN UMMER, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 4 YEARS, KOYAPPARA HOUSE, KUNNIMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR, PIN-670 001.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VELLUR, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT ”
307.
3. SMT.PUMANI, CHENICHERI PADINHARE MULAYIL HOUSE, KUDOMTHADAM, P.O. PADIYATTUCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT ”
308. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.M.SANEER R2 BY SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.26173/12 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A6-41408/2011 DATED 20 10.2012. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER OF THE SITE INVOLVED IN THE CASE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF SKETCH-1, APPENDED TO EXHIBIT P1 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF SKETCH-2 APPENDED TO EXHIBIT P1 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PROPOSED LINE BY PETITIONERS. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.724/1988 OF S.R.O., PERINGOME EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER IN HER FAVOUR. EXT.P8:TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.2856/2011 OF S.R.O., PERINGOME EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXTS.: NIL. Srd (True copy) P.S. To Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
= = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.26173 of 2012 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 28th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT
Ext.P2 order of the first respondent granting permission to draw electricity supply line under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is under challenge. Ext.P2 order merely mentions about the route along which the electricity supply line has to be drawn to the house of the beneficiary. The proposal given by the petitioners who have objected to the route suggested by the second respondent has not been considered at all.
2. It is trite law that economic viability and technical feasibility should be reflected in the orders granting permission under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Ext.P2 order in the instant case does not satisfy the test laid down as above and therefore requires to be set aside. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the issue after notice to the petitioners and other co-owners of the property.
3. The first respondent shall pass fresh orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this W.P.(C) No.26173 o”
2. judgment. The status quo as regards the drawing of electricity supply line would continue till orders are passed afresh by the first respondent as directed above. The Writ Petition (Civil) is disposed of. V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE smm W.P.(C) No.26173 of 2012 3