KOCHUMARIAM Vs. K S E BOARD TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mother and son are the petitioners. They are consumers of electricity, and are being supplied energy through a post standing in their property. The 4th respondent is their neighbour. In 1981 she got a motor cum pump set from the Anthikad NES Block, and applied for an (agricultural) electric connection for using it. The Asst. Engineer and the Asst. Executive Engineer of the K. S. E. Board at Peringottukara thought of giving this connection by drawing a line from the post standing in the first petitioner's property. But she would not agree to that course; in fact, she considered the 4th respondent's desire to get such a connection as a personal challenge (see Para.3 of Ext. P6) to her. The officers of the Board considered the feasibility of drawing the line from another post standing on the side of the Puthenpeedika - Muttichoor Road; but here again, the line had to cross the property of one Smt. Rosa, who too had objections to such drawing. The matter was accordingly referred to the Additional District Magistrate, under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, read with S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act. And as per Ext P9 order, the District Magistrate permitted the Asst. Executive Engineer to draw the line from the post standing in the 1st petitioner's property.

(2.) The petitioners challenge Ext. P9 (and two other communications to be referred to presently). The second petitioner (son) has come into the picture because he too was "impleaded" in the proceedings before the District Magistrate, as the proposed alignment was to pass over 3 cents of land gifted or given to him by the mother, for erecting an "oil crush" (N'v).

(3.) Exts. P1 and P3 are notices issued by the Asst. Engineer and Asst. Executive Engineer to the 1st petitioner, proposing to draw the line along her property and assuring her that only the least inconvenience would be caused. Exts. P2 and P4 are the objections to these notices asserting that such unilateral proposals could not be accepted, suggesting that the line could be drawn from another post, and also indicating that any attempt to carry out the proposal would be treated and dealt with as an attempt to trespass Ext. P5 is the notice issued to the 1st petitioner by the District Magistrate, with copies to others including Smt. Rosa, requesting them to appear before him on 10-2-82 in connection with the proposal and the objections Ext P6 is the written objection filed by the 1st petitioner on 10-2-82 Ext P7 is a supplementary representation dated 4-3-82, and Ext. P8 is the objection filed by the 2nd petitioner on 31-5-82 Ext. P9 is dated 14-6-82, and it appears that the line was drawn as permitted therein, within a day or two. Ext. P11 is a letter dated 16-8-82 from the Asst. Executive Engineer to the 1st petitioner stating that during an inspection of the place (apparently after receipt of notice of this writ petition) conducted on 12-8-82, the 2nd petitioner had informed him that there was need for shifting the line. Ext. P12 is a communication to the petitioners, from the Asst. Engineer, pointing out that "mango batches" were touching the over head lines and that the "newly extended shed" had to be dismantled for avoiding accidents.