KUNJULAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether or not the District Magistrate while exercising the discretion vested in him under S.16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 188S (for short, the Act) has the authority to interfere with the power of the Telegraph authority under S.10 of the said Act, to place and maintain lines, under, over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property made mention of in clause (d) of the proviso to the said section, is the question arising for consideration in this O. P. According to me this question no more is res integra in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Mammoo v. State of Kerala ( 1979 KLT 801 FB). This court after considering the scheme of the Act has held thus:-

(2.) It can thus be seen that the power to be exercised by the authorities mentioned in S.10 of the Act is distinct and different from the discretion, the District Magistrate would exercise under S.16(1) of the Act. In short, these powers/discretions are mutually exclusive. One authority cannot transgress upon the field allotted to the other. If that be the position the choice of the property for the purpose of drawing the line etc., made by the Telegraph authority cannot be interfered with by the District Magistrate in the exercise of the discretion vested in him under S.16.

(3.) In Mammoo's case the Full Bench has held thus:-