The petitioners objected drawing of electric line through their property for giving connection to the 1st respondent. Based on the objections, the matter was referred to the 3rd respondent for adjudication under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The 3rd respondent found that, the line in question which is to be drawn through property of the petitioners is 261 Meters of 'low tension' overhead single phase line and 30 meters of weather proof wire. On the basis of inspection conducted, the 3rd respondent found that there is no alternate route available to draw the line and infact the 1st respondent who is beneficiary is not having any proper road for access, through which line can be drawn. Hence the 2nd respondent was permitted to draw the line as proposed, in exercise of power vested under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act. However it was directed that the 2nd respondent should ensure minimum inconvenience to the petitioners herein, while drawing the electric line. It was also made clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to move the appropriate authority under Section 16 (3) of the Act if any damages are caused while drawing the line. It is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order issued by the 3rd respondent, this writ petition is filed.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that, in Ext.P1 application submitted by the 2nd respondent before the 3rd respondent it is mentioned that 1st respondent is claiming a puramboke land having a width of 7 meters for access to his house. Therefore it is contended that the 3rd respondent had failed to consider availability of the said land for drawing of the line.
3. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 it is mentioned that the shortest route available is the one now permitted by the 3rd respondent and alternate route can only be possible by crossing property of other persons. The 1st respondent in his counter affidavit had categorically mentioned that alternate route mentioned is one through a canal passing adjacent to his property and that mention about such route is made without considering its feasibility. Therefore the impugned order cannot be assailed based on the allegation of non-consideration of its feasibility, is the contention.
4. It is pertinent to note that in Ext.P1 application itself the 2nd respondent had specifically mentioned that no sketch is provided with respect to alternate route alleged, and that drawing of line through such a way will cause 50% additional length, and it will incur additional cost. In the case at hand, the competent authority had conducted site inspection in the presence of all the parties. It was found that the route now permitted is the most feasible, shortest and the least expensive. Under such circumstances, there is no illegality or error in exercise of the power vested under Section 16 (1), in permitting drawal of the line through the said route. This court do not find any material illegality or any valid ground warranting interference with such findings arrived by the competent authority.
5. Hence this writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
6. However it is made clear that liberty reserved in Ext.P2 order in favour of the petitioners to invoke Section 16 (3) if any damages is caused, will sustain and that the petitioners can exercise such rights to the extent permissible under law.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge