The legal position established that the placing and carrying of electric lines over private properties by the Electricity Board are not dependent upon the consent of the individuals concerned.

1. The petitioner is a consumer of Electricity and the 3rd respondent is a neighbour through whose land the electric lines had been drawn and taken for the supply of electricity to the petitioner, by the 1st and 2nd respondents. At the time the line was so taken through his property, it is admitted that the 3rd respondent had signified in writing, his consent to the lines being taken over his property. But subsequently, he withdrew his consent and the 2nd respondent sent Ext. P1 communication to the petitioner calling attention to the 3rd respondent's request to remove the lines to facilitate some constructions on his property, and requested the petitioner to make alternate arrangements for shifting the service lines at his cost. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court and prayed:

"(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order to the 1st and 2nd respondents and to compel them not to disconnector dismantle the service connection made to the petitioner's bouse and to the motor which is operated by the petitioner by consumption of electrical energy under service numbers 855 and 1212; (b) alternatively, to compel the 1st and 2nd respondents by a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order to make alternative arrangements to supply electrical energy to the petitioner as is now being done;

(c) to grant an interim direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents not to give effect to the action contemplated under Ext. P1 pending disposal of this O. P.;

(d) to grant such other reliefs as my be prayed for in the circumstances of this case."

2. The 3rd respondent being a private individual none of the reliefs claimed against him can be compelled in these proceedings under Art.226, and this writ petition in so far as it seeks such reliefs against the 3rd respondent must fail.

3. But as against the 1st and 2nd respondents the position is different. The petitioner's counsel relied upon S.18(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which imposes an obligation on the Electricity Board to supply electricity as soon as possible, to persons requiring the said supply; on S.26 which confers the powers and obligations of a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act 1910 on the Board; on S.42 which notwithstanding anything contained in S.12 to 16, and 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, gives the Board the power of placing wires etc. for the transmission and distribution of electricity. These powers are the same as are possessed by the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, with regard to a telegraph established or maintained by the Government. Attention was then called to S.51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, by which the State Government could, by the order in writing, for the placing of electricity supply lines etc, confer upon any public officer or other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public, any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to the placing of telegraph lines and posts. It is common ground that under this section the requisite powers have been conferred on the Chief Engineer and certain other officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The relevant section of the Indian Telegraph Act, is S.10. Counsel for the petitioner emphasised that a survey of the various provisions of the enactments referred to above, would make it clear that the placing and carrying of electric lines over the properties even of private individuals by the Electricity Board and its officers in discharge of the statutory obligations laid on the Board under the provisions of the Acts in question, are not in any way dependent upon the consent of the individuals concerned. This position seems to be correct on a reading of the provisions referred to earlier. That position is also clearly recognised by the decisions of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Maithey