INDU CHANDRAN Vs. KSEB, TVM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are persons, who own properties on either side of the Ponmalath Road in Muthoor, Thiruvalla, which leads to a school under the management of the 4th respondent. Electric supply to the properties of the petitioners as well as the school is provided through a Low Tension (LT) connection, the lines of which are drawn through poles erected along the Ponmalath Road. The 4th respondent, who currently avails the electric connection to a connected load of 28 KW, submitted an application before the 2nd respondent seeking an additional power allocation to the extent of 64 KW. The requirement of the 4th respondent necessitated the conversion of his existing power supply from Low Tension (LT) to High Tension (HT) and the 2nd respondent proposed the said supply by dismantling the existing poles in the Ponmalath Road and replacing it with HT poles through which, not only the LT lines supplying power to the petitioners, but also an HT line supplying power to the 4th respondent, would be drawn.

(2.) The petitioners objected to the drawing of the lines in the above manner and submitted their objections to the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, along with their suggestion of two alternate routes through which the lines could be drawn. The objections submitted by the petitioners were forwarded to the 3rd respondent for his consideration in accordance with Sec. 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The 2nd respondent also submitted an application before the 3rd respondent, on 16.08.2016, seeking a rejection of the objections submitted by the petitioners and a permission to draw the lines as proposed by him.

(3.) The 3rd respondent, who had to exercise his discretion under Sec. 16 of the Telegraph Act called for a report from the Village Officer, who suggested three alternate routes for drawing the line including the one proposed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, a report was also called from the Tahsildar, who appears to have suggested, based on his understanding of the Village Officers report, that if the petitioners were convinced about the security aspects regarding the lines, they would not seriously object to the proposal of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent, thereafter, heard the petitioners, the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent, and after considering the reports submitted by the Tahsildar and the 2nd respondent, passed Ext.P16 order granting permission to the 1st respondent Board to draw the lines through the route proposed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners impugn Ext.P16 order in this writ petition on the following grounds, namely,