The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Be pleased to hold and declare that, the respondent Subdivisional Magistrate / Prant Officer has no power authority and jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885; and (Annexre-A)

(B) Be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 16-09-2019/20 passed by the respondent Sub-divisional Magistrate / Prant Officer Dwarka, in the proceeding No/MEJI/VIJ CASE/REG. NO.19/2019-20 on the ground of the same being without power authority and jurisdiction, and therefore illegal and unconstitutional; (Annexre-A)

(C) During the pendency and/or final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay operation, execution and further enforcement of the impugned orders dated 16-09-2019/20 passed by the respondent Sub-divisional Magistrate / Prant Officer Dwarka, in the proceeding No/MEJI/VIJ CASE/REG. NO.19/2019- 20 ; (Annexre-A)

(D) Be pleased to grant such other and further ad-interim, interim, and other reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Mr. Vedant Rajguru, learned advocate for Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 – State and Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4.

3. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the respondent no.3- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dwarka dated 16.09.2019 in No/MEJI/VIJ CASE/REG. NO.19/2019-20, duly produced at Annexure-A.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.09.2019, the petitioners herein have approached this Court mainly on the ground that the exercise of powers by the Deputy Collector & Sub Divisional Magistrate/Prant Officer, Dwarka are beyond the jurisdiction. Reliance was placed by Mr. Rajguru, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners on Section-16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and placing reliance on the same, it was submitted that the powers are conferred upon the District Magistrate to decide the application preferred under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. It was submitted that, considering the fact that the order impugned is passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Veraval, the same is without jurisdiction, the order impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside on the aforesaid ground alone.

5. Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 – State were not in a position to controvert the aforesaid position of law and submission made by Mr. Rajguru, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.

6. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which reads thus:

“16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.—

(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.

(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.

(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, o r as to the propor