Statutory authorities are intended to settle disputes in electricity and telephone matters, and civil courts should not entertain suits in such cases where statutory remedies are provided.

C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.

The petitioner is contesting Ext. P4 order of the Addl. District Magistrate, Trichur, issued under Sec. 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Sec.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 approving the drawing up of electric line with weather proof cable fro giving power connection to the residence of the third respondent. In fact, the connection is given from am electric post standing on the side of a pathway. The Electricity Board gave the connection without taking any consent from the petitioner, who claims title over the pathway, on the assumption that the pathway is a public pathway and giving connection to the beneficiary through weather proof connection does not require any consent from the petitioner. However, when the petitioner objected to the Electricity Board and requested for dismantling of the cable drawn over the pathway without the petitioner’s consent, the third respondent filed O.S. No. 653 of 1993, and the suit was decreed on 18-12-1999 granting permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner and the Electricity Board officials from disconnecting the electric connection given to the beneficiary’s residence under consumer No. 1140 till the disposal of the objection pending before the Addl. District Magistrate, Trichur. Obviously, during the pendency of the suit, the matter was referred by the Board to the Addl. District Magistrate for decision in terms of Sec. 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. The impugned order Ext. P4 was passed by the Addl. District Magistrate approving the drawing of the weather proof line over the pathway said to be belonging to the petitioner in the O.P. for the benefit of the third respondent. The fourth respondent in the O.P. as well as the co-plaintiff along with the third respondent in the O.P. is none other than the wife of the beneficiary, the third respondent. It seems that the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent on the title of the pathway has started long back and there is already a settlement between them entered into in the presence of the police officials produced in the O.P. as Ext. Ps I find from the impugned order of the Addl. District magistrate that the connection given to the beneficiary is from a post standing on the side of the pathway and the cable used is only a 12 metre weather proof line. Obviously, the connection given to the beneficiary through weather proof cable 12 metre length from an electric pole standing in a pathway does not any way harm of giving connection to the beneficiary causing least inconvenience to the petitioner or for anyone else for that matter. The Addl. District Magistrate has ‘considered the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, and rejected the same because that required covering a length of 35 metres using a much higher post causing inconvenience to other persons, and their property. In the circumstances, I completely agree with the decision of the Addl. District Magistrate contained in Ext. P4 approving the weather proof line drawn from an electric pole standing in the pathway. The petitioner’s apprehension appears to be the dilution of his title over the pathway on account of the drawing of the electric cable for giving connection to the beneficiary. Overruling of the objection by the Addl. District Magistrate under Sec. 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Sec. 51 of the Indian Electricity Act does not confer any title or right over the property on the beneficiary except the right to retain the cable drawn for granting connection. Therefore I make it clear that the petitioner’s right over the pathway is not affected by virtue of drawing of electric cable from a pole standing in the pathway for the benefit of the third and fourth respondents. Ext. P 4 by itself does not confer any right on respondents 3 and 4 over the pathway. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Ext. P4 order and therefore the Original Petition is dismissed