IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 27TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 37143 of 2017 ----------------

PETITIONER(S)

--------------

P.K. MOHANAN, AGED 57, S/O. KUNJILAL, PULITHUKKENIRAPPATHU HOUSE, VADAKARA P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.

BY ADV.SRI.A.K.RAJESH.

RESPONDENT(S): --------------

1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALLAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 605.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 605.

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 605.

4. SALIMKUMAR, S/O. MADHAVAN, SREEVISHAKAM (NIRAPPATHU) HOUSE, VADAKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 605.

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC.

R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SASIDHARAN.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

WP(C).No. 37143 of 2017 (P)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1. THE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.07.2017.

EXHIBIT P2. THE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.07.2017.

EXHIBIT P3. THE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.08.2017.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

-------------------------------------

W.P.(C)No.37143 of 2017 --------------------------------------

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2018

JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the conduct of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (the Board) in drawing an electric line over his property without his consent. The case of the petitioner is that he therefore, preferred a representation before the first respondent seeking orders changing the alignment of the line. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner only prayed for a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on his representation.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent as also the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

3. In so far as the line is already drawn, the remedy of the petitioner is under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

W.P.(C)No.37143/2017 In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an application before the competent authority under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE skj