JUDGMENT

During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the Electricity Board placed on record a sketch plan in respect of the premises in dispute where petitioner is alleging inaction of the Board in placing the electric post in front of his property. The same is taken on record, marked as Exhibit C(x) and attached at the end of the paper book.

2. Petitioner is claiming to be owner in possession of 8 cents of land in Survey No.170/2-1 of the Pallichal Village and on the rear side, a property measuring 2 acres of land is in ownership of his wife. 8 cents of land was considered wide frontage as per the sketch plan Ext.P1. As per the sketch plan, property shown as 2 in Ext.P1 is the property of the petitioner. The property in question is situated in Pravachambalam junction. Petitioner along with his wife intends to construct a shopping complex but when it was noticed that the electricity board installed three electric posts in such a manner that ingress and egress to the property is substantially hindered. This fact is attempted to be demonstrated from a photograph Ext.P2. In order to seek the redressal of the grievance an application under Section 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, was submitted, before the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, for removing the three posts, at least two posts installed in the property of the petitioner as there are suitable vacant land adjacent to the property and also two posts are dangerous because there is state highway causing hindrance in peaceful enjoyment of the property. The aforementioned application has been rejected by the District Magistrate vide impugned order Ext.P8 dated 02.02.2022.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that during the course of hearing of the petition vide I.A.No.1/2022 photographs taken on 14.03.2022 along with the bill of the same have been placed on record as Exts.P9 and P2 to demonstrate the existence of three posts. The right of person is protected as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Respondents have intentionally protected the property of the neighbour who is already in the process of raising the construction and would be satisfied in case the two posts shown in the photograph are equally placed ie., half-half, but the said fact is not evident. It is in that background petitioner had to approach this Court by laying challenge to the order as the ADM did not take into notice the aforementioned submissions. The illegality is on the face of record in as much as that as per the last communication Ext.P7 dated 23.07.2021 received from the Deputy Chief Engineer to TA to Director, Vaidhythi Bahavan, it is evident that AB switches placed in the double pole situated in the utility space of a newly constructed road in front of properties of petitioner and nieghbour Sri.Sanjeev, which are needed to distribute Tharuvumood Feeder to the Kaliyoor section. One of the poles in the double post is placed in the utility space, which is one meter away from the border of the properties of both the persons.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the aforementioned prayer and supported the order of the ADM based on the report of the concerned officer of licensee ie., Ext.P7 which actually tallies with the situation at spot and correlates to the site plan placed on record as Ext.C(x). Placing of the post Nos.2 and 3 is one meter in the frontage of the petitioner’s land and one meter in the frontage of nieghbour ie., Sri.Sanjeev, thus, no harm and loss would be caused to the petitioner for erection of the two posts, one already erected and other is at the other end of the frontage of property which would not effect his ingress and egress.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

6. When the original writ petition was filed the photograph placed on record was taken from a mobile phone to show the erection of the electric post Nos.2 and 3, but no site plan or report o