LAWS(KER)-2014-2-207

SIMON Vs. OFFICE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

Decided On February 03, 2014
SIMON Appellant
V/S
Office Additional District Magistrate Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants 1 to 5 and the 3rd respondent are brothers and sisters. The 6th appellant is stated to be a neighbour. The 3rd respondent constructed a house below the 11 KV line, which was admittedly without the consent of the Board. The 3rd respondent thereafter applied for a power connection. On inspection by the second respondent, he noticed that it is a 11 KV line passing above the building and he also found that there was no statutory clearance. In such circumstance, in order to provide electricity connection to the 3rd respondent, he decided to re -route the 11 KV line through a pathway leading to the house of the appellants. This was on an undertaking by the 3rd respondent that he would bear the entire cost involved. Re -routing the line was objected by the appellants. In such circumstance, the second respondent moved the first respondent under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act with a prayer to remove the obstruction. The first respondent completed the proceedings and finally passed Ext.P6 order. It was challenging Ext.P6 order the Writ Petition was filed by the appellants, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader for the first respondent, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) HAVING considered the aforesaid submissions made at the Bar, which was contradicted by the counsel appearing for the first respondent, we express the inability to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellants. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has constructed a residential house. He has also applied for a power connection to that building. That would not have been possible unless the re -routing of 11 KV line is done. Re -routing was objected by the appellants and it was to remove that obstruction the second respondent moved the first respondent which resulted in Ext.P6 order.