O.M.Raghavan v. The Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/29TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 11195 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. O.M.RAGHAVAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/o TACHAN RAMAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVALAPPU, CHERUVATHUR P.O.
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. T.SAVITHRI, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.LATE O.M.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVALAPPU CHERUVATHUR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD, VIDYANAGAR P.O.
KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 123.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION PILICODE, CHERUVATHUR P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN : 671 313
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, CHERUVATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN : 671 313
4. T.PADMANABHAN, S/O.TACHAN POZHUTHAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVALAPPU CHERUVATHUR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN : 671 313 R1&3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB R2 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB R4 BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VS
WP(C).No. 11195 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 :
THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 11/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVATUR.
EXHIBIT P2 :
THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 11/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVATHUR.
EXHIBIT P3 :
THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDET TO THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P4 :
THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 10/4/2013 EXHIBIT P5 :
THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/4/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS
V.CHITAMBARESH, J ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11195 of 2013 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioners only wanted the electric line to be drawn along the boundary of their property. This is discernible from the following observations contained in Ext.P5 order of the first respondent. "Respondents have stated that if the existing post at the property of Sri.Ravi is shifted to the boundary line, there would not be loss of improvements".
2. The petitioners now want the electric line to be drawn outside the boundaries of their property. They contend that the electricity line can be drawn along the paddy field lying adjacent. No such contention is seen raised before the first respondent. The paddy fields belong to strangers who have not also been impleaded in the proceedings.
3. I do not find any illegality in Ext.P5 order passed in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act.
W.P.(C).No.11195 of 2013 The first respondent has passed the order on the basis of the relevant inputs which cannot be faulted with. The Writ Petition fails. Dismissed.
Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE vs