VALSAMMA THOMAS Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALAPPUZHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 2412/97. In the Original Petition, she had challenged the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha, under S.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act.

(2.) The Kerala State Electricity Board decided to draw 110 KV line through the petitioners property. This was objected to by the petitioner. According to her, if the line was drawn through the petitioners property, it would cause great damage to the petitioners property including the loss of many coconut trees. Further it was contended that the drawing of the line would also prevent her from constructing a new building in the property. According to the petitioner, there was a barren land adjacent to the petitioners property and if the line drawn is through that property, there would not be any hardship to anyone. When the petitioner obstructed to the drawing of the line, the Assistant Engineer, Kerala Electricity Board placed the matter before the District Magistrate. The learned Magistrate issued notice to the Assistant Engineer as well as to the petitioner. Petitioner filed objections. After hearing the parties and after getting the reports regarding the lie of the property, the District Magistrate exercised his power under S.16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act and permitted the Electricity Board to draw the line. The order of the District Magistrate is produced in the Original Petition as Ext. P3. It was Ext. P3 order that was challenged before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge after going through Ext. P3 order and the records was of the view that the Electricity Board had given the maximum concession to the petitioner. The learned Judge also found that there was no irregularity or illegality in the action taken by the Board. Hence the learned single Judge was of the view that there was no justification to interfere with the order under Art.226 of the Constitution. Against the aforesaid judgment the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Shri. S. Krishnamoorthy, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that against the exercise of discretion under S.16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act by the District Magistrate no other remedy is provided. Hence the aggrieved parties had to approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the drawing of the line affected the rights of many persons with regard to their properties and hence when the District Magistrate exercised his power under S.16(1) of the Telegraph Act, he had to exercise his discretion judicially. The District Magistrate has to consider the entire contentions raised by the parties and further according to him, the order passed by the District Magistrate should contain the answers to the objections raised by the parties. He further contended that even though this Courts power under Art.226 of the Constitution is limited, when dealing with the discretion exercised by the District Magistrate this court would definitely interfere if it was found that the discretion had been exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably or that the order did not show any reasons.