MOAN M JOSEPH Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 4934/13 are the appellants. They filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext. P3 order passed by the 4th respondent on a petition filed by the 5th respondent under S. 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. By that petition, he sought for the shifting of an electric line passing through his property to an adjacent public pathway. By Ext. P3 order, overruling the objections raised by the appellants, the request was allowed. It was in these circumstances that the Writ Petition was filed. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge upholding Ext. P3 order but clarifying that posts shall be erected without in any manner adversely affecting the vehicular traffic. It is aggrieved by this judgment, this appeal has been filed. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, standing counsel appearing for the third respondent, learned Government Pleader for the 4th respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

(2.) As we have already stated, the power of the 4th respondent that was invoked by the 5th respondent was under S. 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act and his request was to shift an electric line passing through his property to a public pathway, adjacent to his residential property. It is this request which is allowed by the impugned order. The question is whether within the scope of S. 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, such a request made by the 5th respondent could have been entertained by the 4th respondent. This issue will have to be answered with reference to S. 17(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, which reads thus;

(3.) Reading of the above provision shows that the removal or alteration of the telephone line or post that is permissible under this provision is to shift it to another part of the property through which the line is passing or the post is laid or to alter the line or the post to higher or lower level or alter in form. In other words, shifting of a line or post that is permissible under this provision can only be from one part of the property through which the line is passing to another part and not outside the property. If that be so, Ext. P3 order permitting shifting of the line to the adjacent pathway, which is, outside the property of the 5th respondent, is clearly beyond the scope of S. 17.