THULASI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DRAWING of electricity line through the property of the husband of the petitioner, so as to provide electric supply to the beneficiary i.e. respondents 4 and 6, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that, the respondent Board submitted two proposals, to draw the electric line, considering the application preferred by respondents 4 and 5, also suggesting that drawing of the line through the particular route, which passes through the property of the husband of the petitioner is less expensive and more feasible. THE proceedings before the first respondent came to be finalised under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, by passing Ext.P1 order, whereby the course and events pursued by the concerned authority has been referred to. It is stated that, notice was issued to all concerned and it was after hearing the parties, that the proceedings were finalised leading to Ext.P1 order, whereby the proposal submitted by the Board has been accepted, permitting the line to be drawn through the property of the husband of the petitioner, so as to provide electric supply to the beneficiary, which in turn is under challenge.

(3.) THE petitioner also submits that the concerned owner of the property was not heard, it being the property belonging to the husband of the petitioner. If the said proposition is to be accepted by this Court, it is equally applicable to her, in so far as the present writ petition is filed without any power of attorney issued by the husband, who happens to be the owner of the property. Issuance of notice, to the husband of the petitioner is very much discernible from the proceedings and the petitioner cannot take a 'U' turn to say that no such notice was ever served. It was pursuant to such notice, that the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and objected to the drawing of line. What was the objection of the petitioner, is not discernible. So also, it is not brought on record that the petitioner had suggested drawing of the electric line through any 'alternate route' or as to the lesser feasibility in respect of the proposal made by the Board with regard to the property belonging to the husband of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that no interference is called for in this writ petition. THE writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.