NANU Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are brothers. They claim co-ownership on 77 Ares 20 sq.Mts. of property comprised in Survey No. 282/7 of Kanjikuzhi Village. Exhibit P1 is the Basic Tax Receipt of the property in question. Petitioners objected drawing of electric line from a post existing in the property, situated near to the residential house of the 1st petitioner, to the 3rd respondent's property. Drawing of electric line to the 3rd respondent's property through other routes was also objected by some other persons. Under such circumstances the 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent invoking jurisdiction under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The 1st respondent while adjudicating the matter found that 80 Meters line is required to be drawn for providing connection through the alternate route suggested and it is crossing property of one Sri.Balakrishnan, Chiramattel House. It was found that the 1st petitioner's property is situated on the southern side of the 3rd respondent's property and there is an existing electric post in the property. According to report submitted by the Village Officer, there is only a distance of 80 Mtrs from the existing post. Whereas distance from the post existing in the Balakrishnan's property is reported as 100 Mts. The 1st respondent found that there is no public pathway available to draw the line to the 3rd respondent's house. After hearing all the parties concerned, including the 1st petitioner, the 1st respondent conducted a site inspection. The 1st respondent was convinced that the most feasible and shortest route is to draw the line from the electric post situated in the property of the 1st petitioner. Hence permission was accorded to draw the line from the existing post situated in the 1st petitioner's property.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that the 2nd petitioner is also a co-owner and he was not given any notice with respect to the proceedings before the 1st respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, apart from the two routes considered by the 1st respondent, there is yet another route which is through property of one Smt.Sathiamma. He relied on a letter issued by the 2nd respondent in reply to a query made under the Right to Information Act. It is stated therein that, for providing electric connection to the 3rd respondent, distance from the electric post situated in the 1st petitioners property is 90 Mtrs. and distance from the post situated in Sathiamma's property is only 79 Mtrs. Therefore the petitioner is seeking a direction to remit the matter for a fresh consideration by the 1st respondent, in view of the third alternate route suggested.

(3.) UNDER the above mentioned circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived by the 1st respondent. When the competent authority had arrived at a subjective satisfaction with respect to the factual situations prevailing, there is no reason for this court to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Article 226, unless there are convincing materials warranting such interference.