Sajeev V. and Vamadevan M v District Collector, Civil Station Kakkanad, Kochi; Additional District Magistrate Civil Station Kakkanad, Kochi; Assistant Executive Engineer Electrical Sub Division, KSEB, Aluva; P.M. Hassankutty Parappurath House, Keezmad Erumathala P.O.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/15TH CHAITHRA, 1939** ## **WA.No. 698 of 2017 IN WP(C).505/2017** **-----------------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 505/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-02-2017** **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS 2 :** **---------------------------------------------** **1. SAJEEV.V** **S/O.VAMADEVAN M., AGED 52 YEARS, MURUKALAYAM HOUSE, KEEZHMADU, EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA.** **2. VAMADEVAN M AGED 85 YEARS, S/O. MAHADEVAN, MURUKALAYAM HOUSE, KEEZHMADU, EAST VILLGE, ALUVA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.AYPE JOSEPH** **RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------** **1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 24** **3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, ALUVA - 683 101.** **4. P.M.HASSANKUTTY PARAPPURATH HOUSE, KEEZMADU, ERUMATHALA P.O., PIN - 683 112.** **R4 BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ R1 AND 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ASHRAF R3 BY SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R., SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rmm** **K.SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ. -----------------------------W.A.No.698 of 2017** **-----------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of April, 2017** **J U D G M E N T -------------------** ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J.** The petitioners in W.P(C) No.505/2017 are in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2017. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P4 order of the 2[nd] respondent issued under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). As per Ext.P4, the 2[nd] respondent has directed drawal of an electric line through the property of the appellants over the points that are marked in Ext.R4(e) sketch by the letters AFGD. According to the appellants, an electric line has been there for the past 45 years, which was drawn W.A.No.698 of 2017 2 through the property of the 4[th] respondent. It was pursuant to a request made by the 4[th] respondent, the shifting has been ordered. Consequent to the shifting, the line has been directed to be drawn through the property of the appellants. The said order was challenged contending that, shifting of an electric line is permissible under Section 17 of the Act only within the same property. Therefore, the 2[nd] respondent exceeded his authority in ordering shifting of the line from the property of the 4[th] respondent and installing the same within the property of the appellants. 3. The learned Single Judge found that consequent to the shifting that has been ordered, it would be possible to provide electric connection to four consumers out of whom, two are the appellants themselves. Since it was to provide electric connection to the appellants themselves that the line was being drawn, the learned Single Judge found that there is no harm in utilizing their own property for the purpose. Accordingly, the impugned order Ext.P4 W.A.No.698 of 2017 3 has been sustained. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 4. According to Adv.Sri.Julian Xavier, who appears for the appellants, the jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act extends only to the shifting of an electric line within the boundaries of the same property. No power to shift an existing electric line to any place outside the same property is available, according to the learned counsel. For the above reason, it is contended that Ext.P4 order is unsustainable. The learned Single Judge seriously went wrong in sustaining such order, it is contended. 5. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2, the Standing Counsel for KSEB represents the 3[rd] respondent and Adv.Smt.Jayasree Manoj appears for the 4[th] respondent. 6. Heard. 7. A perusal of Ext.P4 order of the 2[nd] respondent shows that the same was passed after hearing the parties on 9.8.2016 and after conducting an inspection of the site W.A.No.698 of 2017 4 on 5.11.2016. It has been noticed by the 2[nd] respondent in the order that, while dismantling the line that is presently passing through the property of the 4[th] respondent, the same could be drawn for a distance of 53 meters through the Panchayat road and thereafter, for 30 meters over the property of the appellants. It is not in dispute that, the four consumers to whom the line would be able to provide electric connection include the appellants also. To maintain the existing electric line through the property of 4[th] the respondent would only cause unnecessary burden to his property. On the contrary, shifting of the electric line and locating it along the side of the Panchayat road would not cause any burden or damage to any person. Only for a distance of 30 meters, the line would have to be drawn through the property of the appellants. Considering the fact that the line is being drawn for the purpose of providing electric connection to the appellants also, the complaint raised against drawing the same cannot be sustained. The W.A.No.698 of 2017 5 contention appears to be that, the line should be retained in the property of the 4[th] respondent, though the same is to benefit the appellants also. Since the order Ext.P4 has been passed after hearing the parties and also after conducting a site inspection, we accept the factual details contained therein. A perusal of Ext.R4(e) sketch shows that the factual data to which reference has been made in Ext.P4 tally with the same. Therefore, we find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P4 on facts. 8. A legal contention has been raised by the counsel for the appellants that the power under Section 17 of the Act is not available to shift an electric line, outside the property of the 4[th] respondent. However, it is necessary to take note of the fact that, the authority has ample powers under Section 10 of the Act to place and maintain Telegraphic lines and posts through private properties. The said power is controlled by the limitation that, the authority shall do as little damage as possible. Therefore, to confine the powers of the authorities within W.A.No.698 of 2017 6 the limits of Section 17 of the Act is uncalled for. Though the present order may have been passed on the basis of an application for shifting of the electric line from the 4[th] respondent's property, the fact remains that the authority has ample power under Section 10 to place such line within any other property. As already noticed above, in the present case, the major portion of the line is drawn through the Panchayat road. Going by Ext.P4, it is drawn for a distance of 53 meters through the Panchayat road and only the remaining 30 meters is passing through the property of the appellants, who are going to benefit from the drawing of the line. Therefore, the appellants cannot be heard to complain that no portion of their property shall be utilised for providing electric connection to them. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants relies on the decision of this Court in **Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate [1997(2) KLT 979]** to contend that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements that are stipulated by the Division Bench of 7 W.A.No.698 of 2017 this Court in the said decision. However, we are not satisfied that there is any material in the present case to claim that Ext.P4 has violated the stipulations. In the present case, the parties were heard, site inspection was conducted and all the relevant aspects were considered by the 2[nd] respondent while passing Ext.P4 order. The same is also a speaking order. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE.** rmm