The petitioner has constructed a residential building in his property comprised in Sy.No.682/11-2 of Kannamangalam Village. He submitted an application before the 3rd respondent for electric connection to his house. As the electric post for drawing electric connection to the petitioner's house will have to be erected in the pathway adjacent to the property owned by the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent moved an application before the 2nd respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeking permission. By Ext.P1 order the 2nd respondent granted permission to the 3rd respondent for drawing 41 meters of overhead line and 20 meters of weather proof wire through the pathway. Though notice was issued by the 2nd respondent, there was no appearance for the 5th respondent and therefore Ext.P1 order was passed without hearing the 5th respondent. 2. On coming to know about Ext.P1 order, the 5th respondent submitted an objection before the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice regarding the personal hearing scheduled on 21/12/2009. Though the petitioner was present before the 2nd respondent on 21/12/2009, nothing took place. Thereafter Exts.P3 and P4 notices were issued from the office of the 2nd respondent proposing personal hearing on different dates, but nothing materialized. It was in such circumstances the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 1st respondent requesting that immediate steps be taken to draw electric line to the petitioner’s residential building, which was being delayed by the officials of the KSEB despite Ext.P1 order.
3. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P6 notice by the 2nd respondent proposing to conduct another hearing on 26/5/2010. Though the petitioner was present before the 2nd respondent on 26/5/2010 and submitted the factual aspects, no final decision was taken. It was in such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P2 to P6 and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to provide electric connection to the petitioner’s house in view of the sanction accorded in terms of Ext.P1.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent contending that he is not the absolute owner of the property through which sanction for drawing electric line is sought by the 2nd respondent in order to give electric connection to the petitioner’s house. The property which originally belonged to his mother, late Madhavi Amma Chellamma is the subject matter in O.S.No.340 of 2001 pending before the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara, a partition suit between 12 members who are her legal heirs. Ext.R5(1) is the preliminary decree passed by the Munsiff Court in O.S.No.340 of 2001. According to the 5th respondent, he was neither informed nor heard by the 2nd respondent before passing Ext.P1 order as his address shown in Ext.P1 is incorrect.
According to the 5th respondent, on coming to know about Ext.P1 order, he has submitted Ext.R5(2) representation before the District Magistrate. Ext.R5(3) is the sketch prepared by the 5th respondent showing various routes for drawing electric line to the house of the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that, in the site inspection conducted on 11/2/2010, pursuant to Ext.P4 communication, the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent were present. After the inspection the inspection team unanimously agreed that the 2nd route is easier and less expensive, because it needs only 20 metres of weather proof wire and further the said route is passing through the boundary line of the two properties. On the other hand, the route proposed by the Board needs 41 metres of overhead line and 20 metres of weather proof wire totaling to 61 metres and 2 additional posts.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Board. I have also perused the records of the case.
6. Based on the application submitted by the petitioner for electricity connection to his residential building, the 3rd respondent moved an application before the 2nd respondent under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, which culminated in Ext.P1 order. It appears that Ext.P1 order was without notice to the 5th respondent, which resulted in the said respondent filing Ext.R5(2) representation before the District Magistrate. As can be seen from Exts.P2 to P6 the 2nd respondent re- opened the matter and a site inspection was also conducted on 11/2/2010. But thereafter nothing happened and the grievance of the petitioner is that the request for granting electric connection to his house is kept pending without assigning any valid reason.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board submit that the 2nd respondent may be directed to finalise the proceedings within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to finalise the matter regarding the permission sought for effecting electric connection to the house of the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner, the 5th respondent and any other affected parties, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj