VENUGOPALAN C. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns Ext.P3 order passed by the 1 st respondent under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 by which permission was granted to the 2nd respondent to provide electric connection to the 4 th respondent through the road proposed by the KSEB and recommended by the revenue authorities.

(2.) The petitioner herein and the 4th respondent are neighbours. As a matter of fact, it is apparent from the sketch prepared by the Village Officer, Anakayam, which is produced as Ext.R4(b) that the 4 th respondent is residing at a distance of just under 35 meters towards the south- eastern side of the property of the petitioner.

(3.) The facts indispensable for the present adjudication portray that the 4th respondent, who was having no electric connection to his residential home, approached the 2nd respondent and applied for the same. The 2nd respondent visited the spot and conducted an inspection. He found that the most ideal and feasible option was to draw the connection from a post situated in the property of the petitioner. He found that the post was just 25 meters away and alternative posts were situated at considerable distances. The petitioner, being aggrieved, raised objection. His primary objection was that the 4th respondent had sexually abused his mentally challenged daughter and a crime had been registered as Crime No.116 of 2016 of the Manjeri Police Station inter alia under Section 354A(1) of the IPC. Due to the above fact, it would be grossly objectionable to insist that the 4 th respondent should be permitted to draw electric line from the post situated in his property. He also contended that there are alternate options and though it may incur more expenses, in view of the peculiar facts, the 2nd respondent ought to have avoided drawing the line from the post situated in his property.