MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on a complaint dated 16.8.1997 made by respondent No.2, directing the petitioner/MTNL to remove the obstruction from the respondent No. 2's drive way and relocate the pillars of the junction boxes at a suitable place.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the three junction boxes in question have not been installed by the petitioner within the property of respondent No. 2 and rather, the same are on public land. He states that Section 17 of the Act can come to the aid of only such persons, who are aggrieved by the action of the petitioner of installing telegraph lines on the private property or the property with which, an aggrieved party intends to deal with in any manner. He submits that in the present case, the three telegraph lines/junction boxes were laid on land belonging to the local authorities and no objection had been raised by any private party at the relevant time, and that the only requirement to be fulfilled by the petitioner at the time of laying the telegraph lines on a property vested in a local authority, was to take permission from the said authority, as envisaged under proviso (c) of Section 10 of the Act. Hence, it is stated that the complaint of respondent No. 2 for removal of junction boxes fixed across the front wall of his property, was misplaced and was liable to be rejected.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the SDM of the area was directed to visit the site, i.e, House No. 27, Surya Niketan, Delhi and submit an inspection report. In the said report dated 16.4.1999 (Annexure R-2 to the counter affidavit), the SDM observed that the petitioner/MTNL had installed three extension boxes in front of the plot, subject matter of the writ petition. He also examined the sanction plan of the DDA and noted that the extension boxes came in front of the proposed gate as per copy of the plan submitted by respondent No. 2 While taking note of the distance between the junction boxes and the boundary wall of the plot, the SDM observed that there was every possibility that if the main gate is constructed as per the proposed site plan, then the drive way of the respondent No. 2 would be obstructed. Taking into consideration the aforesaid report of the SDM, the learned District Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the junction boxes were liable to be removed on account of causing obstruction to the respondent. drive way, with further directions to the petitioner to relocate the same at a suitable place.