POULO KUNJ OUSEPH Vs. KSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a consumer of Electricity and the 3rd respondent is a neighbour through whose land the electric lines had been drawn and taken for the supply of electricity to the petitioner, by the 1st and 2nd respondents. At the time the line was so taken through his property, it is admitted that the 3rd respondent had signified in writing, his consent to the lines being taken over his property. But subsequently, he withdrew his consent and the 2nd respondent sent Ext. P1 communication to the petitioner calling attention to the 3rd respondent's request to remove the lines to facilitate some constructions on his property, and requested the petitioner to make alternate arrangements for shifting the service lines at his cost. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court and prayed:

(2.) The 3rd respondent being a private individual none of the reliefs claimed against him can be compelled in these proceedings under Art.226, and this writ petition in so far as it seeks such reliefs against the 3rd respondent must fail.

(3.) But as against the 1st and 2nd respondents the position is different. The petitioner's counsel relied upon S.18(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which imposes an obligation on the Electricity Board to supply electricity as soon as possible, to persons requiring the said supply; on S.26 which confers the powers and obligations of a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act 1910 on the Board; on S.42 which notwithstanding anything contained in S.12 to 16, and 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, gives the Board the power of placing wires etc. for the transmission and distribution of electricity. These powers are the same as are possessed by the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, with regard to a telegraph established or maintained by the Government. Attention was then called to S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, by which the State Government could, by the order in writing, for the placing of electricity supply lines etc, confer upon any public officer or other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public, any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to the placing of telegraph lines and posts. It is common ground that under this section the requisite powers have been conferred on the Chief Engineer and certain other officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The relevant section of the Indian Telegraph Act, is S.10. Counsel for the petitioner emphasised that a survey of the various provisions of the enactments referred to above, would make it clear that the placing and carrying of electric lines over the properties even of private individuals by the Electricity Board and its officers in discharge of the statutory obligations laid on the Board under the provisions of the Acts in question, are not in any way dependent upon the consent of the individuals concerned. This position seems to be correct on a reading of the provisions referred to earlier. That position is also clearly recognised by the decisions of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Maitheyan ( 1972 KLT 540 ) and seems to be implicit in the ruling of the Full Bench in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products (P) Ltd. v. The Kerala State Electricity Board ( 1970 KLT 872 ). Being so, the legal position appears to be plain that the withdrawal of consent by the 3rd respondent by itself cannot automatically entail a dismantling or removal of the electric lines laid by the Board or its Officers over the 3rd respondent's property for the purpose of giving the service connection to the petitioner. Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 attempted an argument that the provisions of S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, would not be applicable to service lines such as what is involved in this writ petition. On the language of the section, which refers to the placing of electric supply lines etc, I am unable to read this restriction in the Section. Nor am I able to find any such restriction in the remaining words or language used in the Section. Having thus declared the law, there is no reason to apprehend that respondents 1 and 2 will act otherwise. It is therefore unnecessary to issue a writ of mandamus prayed for as the main relief in this writ petition, or even grant the other reliefs prayed for by the petition.