SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Ker) 213

Judges : RADHAKRISHNA MENON
KUNJULAKSHMI - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 5101 of 1985
Decided On : 07/17/1986
Advocates Appeared :
K.K. Usha; For Petitioner P.N. Ramakrishnan Nair; Government Pleader; For Respondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers/discretions of the authorities mentioned in S.10 and S.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are distinct and different, and mutually exclusive.

Headnote:

Indian Telegraph Act - District Magistrate's authority to interfere with the power of the Telegraph authority under S.10 - S.10, S.16 - The court discussed the distinct and different powers/discretions of the authorities mentioned in S.10 and S.16 of the Act, emphasizing that these powers/discretions are mutually exclusive. The court held that the District Magistrate's discretion under S.16(1) is only for granting permission to the authority under S.10 in the discharge of its functions under the said section.

Fact of the Case:

The District Magistrate's authority to interfere with the power of the Telegraph authority under S.10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was questioned. The District Magistrate's discretion under S.16(1) and its purpose were also examined.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the powers/discretions of the authorities mentioned in S.10 and S.16 of the Act are distinct and different, and mutually exclusive. The District Magistrate's discretion under S.16(1) is only for granting permission to the authority under S.10 in the discharge of its functions under the said section.

Issues: The main issue was whether the District Magistrate has the authority to interfere with the power of the Telegraph authority under S.10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the District Magistrate's discretion under S.16(1) is only for granting permission to the authority under S.10 in the discharge of its functions under the said section.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the O. P. as it found that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief, and the District Magistrate had considered the objections raised before passing the impugned order.

Judgment :-

1. Whether or not the District Magistrate while exercising the discretion vested in him under S.16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 188S (for short, the Act) has the authority to interfere with the power of the Telegraph authority under S.10 of the said Act, to place and maintain lines, under, over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property made mention of in clause (d) of the proviso to the said section, is the question arising for consideration in this O. P. According to me this question no more is res integra in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Mammoo v. State of Kerala (1979 KLT. 801 FB). This court after considering the scheme of the Act has held thus:

"S. 10 of the Act, as already indicated, gives the Telegraph authority power to place and maintain Telegraph line in or upon any immovable property. The proviso indicates that such power is to be exercised only for Telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government or to be so established and maintained, that the Central Government acquires only the right of user, that in the case of local authority the exercise has to be with permission of that authority and that in the exercise of such power as little damage as possible is to be caused. These are in the nature of restriction in the exercise of the power and do not restrict the discretion to determine the property over which the lines are to pass or posts are to be erected. That discretion is in the Telegraph authority. If he is resisted or restricted he seeks permission from the District Magistrate whose adjudication does not cover the question whether line is to be drawn over any specific item of property or whether posts are to be erected or not in any specific item of property. S 16 does not

indicate that as within the power of the District Magistrate The enquiry by the District Magistrate would be in the nature of a ministerial enquiry. There is no question of calling for evidence, sifting such evidence, and coming to a judicial decision thereon. In the event such judicial decision on issues was contemplated by S.16 (1) there would necessarily have been indication in the section as to the issues that could be so considered and judicially disposed of by the District Magistrate. No doubt S.16(1) provides that in granting permission to the Telegraph Authority the District Magistrate is to exercise his discretion." (emphasis supplied)

2. It can thus be seen that the power to be exercised by the authorities mentioned in S.10 of the Act is distinct and different from the discretion, the District Magistrate would exercise under S.16 (1) of the Act. In short, these powers/discretions are mutually exclusive. One authority cannot transgress upon the field allotted to the other. If that be the position the choice of the property for the purpose of drawing the line etc., made by the Telegraph authority cannot be interfered with by the District Magistrate in the exercise of the discretion vested in him under S.16.

3. In Mammoo's case the Full Bench has held thus:

"If so the District Magistrate functions in this case only as an administrative or executive authority and the exercise of his discretion under S.16 (1) is only that incidental to an executive or administrative exercise."

The Full Bench has also held that "the enquiry by the District Magistrate under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, would be in the nature of a ministerial enquiry. There is no question of calling for evidence, sifting such evidence and coming to a judicial decision thereon". During the course of the ministerial enquiry if the District Magistrate finds that the exercise of power by the telegraph authority under S.10 in respect of property mentioned in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may order that the Telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them. The wording of the section is that "the Telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise" the power vested i













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top