LILLY ANTONY Vs. ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is against Ext. P2, an order passed by the first respondent, on an application made by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent sought power connection and when line was attempted to be drawn through a pathway, that was objected by the petitioners. Thereupon the 2nd respondent moved the first respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent in exercise of its powers under the Indian Telegraph Act conducted an enquiry with notice to the parties including the petitioners and passed Ext. P2 order removing the obstructions and permitting to draw line through the proposed line.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the alignment in question, though it is through a pathway, passes through the petitioners' property. It is stated that there is an adjacent purambokku land through which the line could have been drawn. According to him, it is ignoring the feasibility of drawing line through alternate routes that the line is permitted to be drawn as per Ext. P2.

(3.) HOWEVER, having gone through Ext. P1, the objection filed by the petitioners before the first respondent, I do not find that any such alternate proposal was made before Ext. P2 order was passed. In fact it is only as per ext. P3 dated 30. 5. 2009, filed long after Ext. P2 order was passed that this proposal was suggested. I cannot therefore find fault with Ext. P2 order on this account. In view of the above, I am not in a position to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.