BHAVADASAN NAMBOOTHIRI Vs. ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is contesting Ext. P4 order of the Addl. District Magistrate, Trichur, issued under Sec. 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Sec.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 approving the drawing up of electric line with weather proof cable fro giving power connection to the residence of the third respondent. In fact, the connection is given from am electric post standing on the side of a pathway. THE Electricity Board gave the connection without taking any consent from the petitioner, who claims title over the pathway, on the assumption that the pathway is a public pathway and giving connection to the beneficiary through weather proof connection does not require any consent from the petitioner. However, when the petitioner objected to the Electricity Board and requested for dismantling of the cable drawn over the pathway without the petitioner s consent, the third respondent filed O.S. No. 653 of 1993, and the suit was decreed on 18-12-1999 granting permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner and the Electricity Board officials from disconnecting the electric connection given to the beneficiary s residence under consumer No. 1140 till the disposal of the objection pending before the Addl. District Magistrate, Trichur. Obviously, during the pendency of the suit, the matter was referred by the Board to the Addl. District Magistrate for decision in terms of Sec. 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. THE impugned order Ext. P4 was passed by the Addl. District Magistrate approving the drawing of the weather proof line over the pathway said to be belonging to the petitioner in the O.P. for the benefit of the third respondent. THE fourth respondent in the O.P. as well as the co-plaintiff along with the third respondent in the O.P. is none other than the wife of the beneficiary, the third respondent. It seems that the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent on the title of the pathway has started long back and there is already a settlement between them entered into in the presence of the police officials produced in the O.P. as Ext. Ps I find from the impugned order of the Addl. District magistrate that the connection given to the beneficiary is from a post standing on the side of the pathway and the cable used is only a 12 metre weather proof line. Obviously, the connection given to the beneficiary through weather proof cable 12 metre length from an electric pole standing in a pathway does not any way harm of giving connection to the beneficiary causing least inconvenience to the petitioner or for anyone else for that matter. THE Addl. District Magistrate has considered the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, and rejected the same because that required covering a length of 35 metres using a much higher post causing inconvenience to other persons, and their property. In the circumstances, I completely agree with the decision of the Addl. District Magistrate contained in Ext. P4 approving the weather proof line drawn from an electric pole standing in the pathway. THE petitioner s apprehension appears to be the dilution of his title over the pathway on account of the drawing of the electric cable for giving connection to the beneficiary. Overruling of the objection by the Addl. District Magistrate under Sec. 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Sec. 51 of the Indian Electricity Act does not confer any title or right over the property on the beneficiary except the right to retain the cable drawn for granting connection. THErefore I make it clear that the petitioner s right over the pathway is not affected by virtue of drawing of electric cable from a pole standing in the pathway for the benefit of the third and fourth respondents. Ext. P 4 by itself does not confer any right on respondents 3 and 4 over the pathway. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Ext. P4 order and therefore the Original Petition is dismissed with these observations.

(2.) AS in this case, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases the parties are approaching the civil courts for settling the disputes, particularly, in electricity and telephone matters where statutory authorities are constituted to settle the disputes between the parties. Ultimately, as in this case, the civil courts are constrained to refer the matter to statutory authorities for their decision, which will bind the parties. Therefore it is absolutely unnecessary for the civil courts to entertain suits of this nature when they are not intended, nor able to, render comprehensive decision on all matters pertaining to the issue. Disputes with regard to or for the drawal or laying of electric cable or telephone cable either for public purpose benefit of private parties involving crossing of private properties have to be settled by the District magistrate interms of Sec. 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act which supplies to electricity matters as well by virtue of Sec. 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. Similar is the case with regard to electricity bills and telephone bills disputed by consumers. In the case of disputed electricity bills, there is provision for an appeal against such bills to the next higher authority in terms Regulation 39(e) of Conditions of Supply Act. Disputes involving meter fault, and consequent bills are settled under Sec. 26(6) of the Electricity Supply Act by referring the disputes to be settled by arbitration by the Electrical Inspectorate. Similar provision for arbitration is provided under Sec. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act for settling all disputes on telephone bills. Inspite of these statutory schemes of settling issues large number of suits filed are pending before civil courts and some of the parties have taken up the matter to Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. The result invariable in such cases is rendering of half-baked justice by ultimately referring the matter to the concerned statutory authorities. This happens after the pendency of the suits or complaints before civil courts or Consumer Forums for several months and in some cases years involving collassal waste of time and money of courts, litigants and public corporations. It is also pertinent to note that the special statutes like the telegraph Act, Electricity Act, etc., confer jurisdiction on authorities with technical knowledge to settle the dispute either in appeal or through arbitration. Therefore the intervention by civil courts is against the spirit and the scheme of these statutes. Therefore it is not in the interest of the litigations not in public interest to entertain suits pertaining to these matters either by civil courts or by consumer forums. A Division Bench of this Court in GENERAL MANAGER V. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, (2000) 2 K.L.T. 195 held that the consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complains on telephone bills. In the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directing all civil courts, and District Consumer Forums not to entertain suits or complaints in respect of electricity or telephone matters where there is statutory remedy provided for settlement of disputes between parties, particularly on issue narrated above. Any such suit or complaint filed shall be disposed above. Any such suit or complaint filed shall be disposed of at the admission stage as one not maintainable. There will be a further direction to the civil courts and district consumer forms to dispose of the pending cases filed against the Kerala State Electricity Board and the Telephone Department involving issues narrated above by referring the matter to the concerned statutory authority within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to all the civil courts functioning under this Court and to all district consumer forms located in the State without any delay.