Fathima vs the Assistant Engineer

Fathima vs The Assistant Engineer

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 11, 2022

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1520307

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/1520307
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Amit Rawal
Decided On: Jan 11, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/8336/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fathima

Respondent

The Assistant Engineer

Excerpt

.....moorkkanadu village, malappuram district purchased as per ext.p1. respondent nos.1 to 3 had drawn the electric lines and erected an electric post in the property of the petitioner without obtaining his consent. a complaint was filed before the first respondent on 17.02.2017 and another on18.02.201 before the electrical executive engineer exts.p2 and p3. first respondent is required to file the petition before the 4th respondent to remove theobstructions under section 16(1) of the telegraph act,1885. aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred a petition before the 4th respondent for adjudication under section 17 of the telegraph act ext.p4.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case an appropriate direction is issued to the 4 th respondent to decide the -3- petition, if pending under section 17 of the telegraph act. without expressing any opinion on the merits of thematter, i dispose off the writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to take a call on the representation ext.p4 in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of thejudgment.sd/- amit rawal judge vv -4- appendix of wp(c) 8336/2017 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1: true copy of the assignment deed no.389/2005 dated 9.2.2005. exhibit p2: true copy of the complaint dated 17.2.2017. exhibit p3: true copy of the complaint dated 18.2.2017. exhibit p4: true copy of the petition dated 22.2.20173. exhibit p5: true copy of the power of attorney dated 29.7.2016.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943 PETITIONER: FATHIMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O UMMER HAJI, KOKKOTTIL HOUSE, KOLATHUR, MOORKKANAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SECTION, KSEB, KOLATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679338. 2 MUHAMMED, S/O AYAMUTTY, KOKKOTTIL HOUSE, KOLATHUR, MOORKKANAD, 3 AYAMUTTY, KOKKOTTIL HOUSE, KOLATHUR, MOORKKANAD, 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM-679505. 5 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-679505. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.BINU, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED SRI.N.SATHEESH, R.HARISHANKAR SRI.B.PREMOD, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

JUDGMENT

Grievance of the petitioner in a narrow compass is that petitioner is the exclusive owner of 78.9 cents of land comprised in Survey No.210/1 Moorkkanadu Village, Malappuram District purchased as per Ext.P1. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had drawn the electric lines and erected an electric post in the property of the petitioner without obtaining his consent. A complaint was filed before the first respondent on 17.02.2017 and another on

18.02.201     before     the      Electrical   Executive     Engineer
Exts.P2 and P3.        First respondent is required to file the
petition    before   the    4th    respondent     to   remove     the

obstructions under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act,

1885. Aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred a petition before the 4th respondent for adjudication under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act Ext.P4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case an appropriate direction is issued to the 4 th respondent to decide the -3- petition, if pending under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

matter, I dispose off the writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to take a call on the representation Ext.P4 in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the

judgment.

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE vv -4- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8336/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.389/2005 DATED 9.2.2005. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.2.2017. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.2.2017. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22.2.20173. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 29.7.2016.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Fathima vs The Assistant Engineer Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Amit Rawal