BABU VARGHESE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the relief proposed in this writ petition, I am of the opinion that issuance of notice to the 4th respondent is not necessary.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for electric connection as early as in the year 2006. According to him he had produced necessary documents to show possession and occupancy of the building in question. However the 4th respondent objected drawing of the line for providing connection to the petitioner's residence. The 3rd respondent thereupon approached the 2nd respondent invoking jurisdiction vested under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. It is evident that a proceeding was initiated by the 2nd respondent and hearing of all parties concerned were conducted on different occasions, on the basis of Exhibits P5 to P7 notices. But inspite of the fact that such hearings were conducted during the year 2009 and 2010, the 2nd respondent has not finalised the proceedings. In Exhibit P9 reply given to a query made under the Right to Information Act, it is stated that, the 2nd respondent is not disposing the proceedings because of the fact that there exists a civil case before the Sub Court, Nedumangad as A.S. No. 45/2006, touching the dispute regarding title over the property. Hence it is informed that, only after disposing of the civil suit the 2nd respondent can finalise the proceedings. Exhibit P10 is another similar reply given on the matter.

(3.) UNDER the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to finalise the proceedings initiated on the basis of Exhibits P5 to P7 notice, if necessary after conducting further hearing of all parties concerned, and on the basis of materials if any to be collected. An early decision in the matter is highly satisfied. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of the matter at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.