Simon Vs. Additional District Magistrate

Simon vs Additional District Magistrate

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 03, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1125604

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1125604
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Antony Dominic
Decided On: Feb 03, 2014
Subject: FERA

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

FERA

Key legal issue: FERA

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Simon

Respondent

Additional District Magistrate

Excerpt

.....counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.3. the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that power under section 16 invoked by the first respondent to pass ext.p6 order is not applicable to the facts of the case and that shifting of a line is permissible only under section 17 of the indian telegraph act. therefore, according to the learned counsel, ext.p6 order and the view w.a.no.215 of 2014 3 taken by the learned single judge in upholding ext.p6 order are illegal and call for interference.4. having considered the aforesaid submissions made at the bar, which was contradicted by the counsel appearing for the first respondent, we express the inability to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellants. admittedly, the 3rd respondent has constructed a residential house. he has also applied for a power connection to that building. that would not have been possible unless the re-routing of 11 kv line is done. re-routing was objected by the appellants and it was to remove that obstruction the second respondent moved the first respondent which resulted in ext.p6 order.5. section 17 of the telegraph act deals with shifting of an electric line within the property of a consumer or owner and that too on an application made by such person. this is not a case where the 3rd respondent had applied for shifting of the 11 kv line and on the other hand in order to provide electricity connection to his premises when the appellants caused w.a.no.215 of 2014 4 obstruction it was the second respondent who made the application, which led to ext.p6. such an application made by the second respondent could have been only under section 16 of the telegraph act. we therefore do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. the appeal is therefore dismissed. antony dominic, judge anil k.narendran, judge skj true copy p.a. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE3D DAY OF FEBRUARY201414TH MAGHA, 1935 WA.No. 215 of 2014 IN WP(C).491/2014 ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN WP(C).491/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED241/2014 APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS : ------------------------ 1.S/O.VARGHESE, SIMON, PATTIKKAD P.O.,NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, CHANOTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2.S/O.VARGHESE, SHAJU, PATTIKKAD P.O.,NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, CHANOTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3.S/O.VARGHESE, JESSY ANTO, PATTIKKAD P.O.,NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, CHANOTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4.D/O.VARGHESE, SHEEBA, PATTIKKAD P.O.,NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, CHANOTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5.D/O.VARGHESE, SHINI, PATTIKKAD P.O.,NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, CHANOTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6.W/O.DAISON, VINEETHA DAISON, VATTEKKATTUKARA HOUSE, CHANOTH, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL SRI.K.G.CLEETUS WA.No. 215 of 2014 IN WP(C).491/2014 RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS IN WP. -------------------------------- 1.OFFICE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OF THE ADDITONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR, PIN68065. 2.ELECTRICAL ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MADAKKATHARA P.O., THRISSUR- 680652. 3.S/O.VARGHESE, BIJU, NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, CHANOTH, PATTIKKADU. P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN68065. BY SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI BY SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0302-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

---------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.215 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

The appellants 1 to 5 and the 3rd respondent are brothers and sisters. The 6th appellant is stated to be a neighbour. The 3rd respondent constructed a house below the 11 KV line, which was admittedly without the consent of the Board. The 3rd respondent thereafter applied for a power connection. On inspection by the second respondent, he noticed that it is a 11 KV line passing above the building and he also found that there was no statutory clearance. In such circumstance, in order to provide electricity connection to the 3rd respondent, he decided to re-route the 11 KV line through a pathway leading to the house of the appellants. This was on an undertaking by the 3rd respondent that he would bear the entire cost involved. Re-routing the line was objected by the W.A.No.215 of 2014 2 appellants. In such circumstance, the second respondent moved the first respondent under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act with a prayer to remove the obstruction. The first respondent completed the proceedings and finally passed Ext.P6 order. It was challenging Ext.P6 order the Writ Petition was filed by the appellants, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader for the first respondent, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that power under Section 16 invoked by the first respondent to pass Ext.P6 order is not applicable to the facts of the case and that shifting of a line is permissible only under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, Ext.P6 order and the view W.A.No.215 of 2014 3 taken by the learned Single Judge in upholding Ext.P6 order are illegal and call for interference.

4. Having considered the aforesaid submissions made at the Bar, which was contradicted by the counsel appearing for the first respondent, we express the inability to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellants. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has constructed a residential house. He has also applied for a power connection to that building. That would not have been possible unless the re-routing of 11 KV line is done. Re-routing was objected by the appellants and it was to remove that obstruction the second respondent moved the first respondent which resulted in Ext.P6 order.

5. Section 17 of the Telegraph Act deals with shifting of an electric line within the property of a consumer or owner and that too on an application made by such person. This is not a case where the 3rd respondent had applied for shifting of the 11 KV line and on the other hand in order to provide electricity connection to his premises when the appellants caused W.A.No.215 of 2014 4 obstruction it was the second respondent who made the application, which led to Ext.P6. Such an application made by the second respondent could have been only under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act. We therefore do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A. To Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Simon vs Additional District Magistrate Same Subject FERA Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Antony Dominic