ALEYAMMA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above captioned Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of his powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 by which permission was accorded to the 2nd respondent to provide service connection to the residential home of the 3rd respondent by imposing certain conditions.

(2.) The facts of the case in its essence is that the 3 rd respondent is the neighbour of the petitioner and she is residing on the eastern side of the property of the petitioner. Their properties are situated by a pathway lying in the North-South direction. On the northern side of the property of both the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent is the Gandhipuram - Athani main road. The 3 rd respondent applied for an electric connection to the building which was being newly constructed by her. The 2nd respondent decided to draw a line from a post situated on the northern side of the main road and through the pathway lying on the eastern side of the property of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, if the line is so drawn, it would cause danger to her property and several trees and plants would have to be cut and removed. According to the petitioner, if a new post is installed towards the eastern side from the post from which line is being drawn, supply can be provided without any inconvenience. When objection was raised by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued summons to the parties and considered the objections of both sides. He took note of the fact that the line was being drawn through the pathway, which is meant for accessing the property of the 3 rd respondent and no serious inconvenience is likely to be caused to the petitioner. He also took note of the fact that the access of the petitioner to the main road was through the northern side of her property. The 2 nd respondent on the other hand contended that the line was drawn after providing adequate clearance and to alleviate any inconvenience, a side arm can be placed so that some distance can be maintained from the eastern boundary of the property of the petitioner. After considering all facts, the proposal made by the 2nd respondent was accepted and sanction was accorded.

(3.) Smt.S.Sikky, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the relationship between the parties are quite strained and the only intention of the 3 rd respondent is to cause inconvenience to the petitioner. She contended that the line is being drawn very close to the eastern boundary of the property of the petitioner and referring to the photographs produced by her as Ext.P2, it is urged that her property is thickly planted with trees. It is further contended that though a temporary line was drawn by using a side arm adequate distance is not maintained.