JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, C.J. (Oral): This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 6-3-2006 in W.P. No. 3132 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The grievance of the appellant is regarding the attempt of respondents 3 and 4 to draw the proposed High Tension Power lines of 66 KV. over the land of the appellant. In the writ petition the petitioner (appellant herein) prayed for a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representations dated 5-1-2006 and 7-1-2006 (Annexure -G and H) submitted by the appellant treating them as his objections under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. But the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer observing that if the petitioner were to cause obstruction while fixing the electrical power lines, it is open to the respondents to move the appropriate authority for necessary orders in accordance with the provisions of the Telegraph Act. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Advocate who accepted notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri N.K Gupta, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4, we are of the view that in the light of the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Limited v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum and Others 1 and Mammoo v. State of Kerala and Another2, the representations Annexures-G and H are liable to be treated as resistance or obstruction by the appellant for the purpose of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 were bound to refer the matter to the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the said Act instead of waiting for the appellant to physically obstruct the fixing of the transmission lines and to commit an offence under Section 186 of the IPC. We are also of the view that this Court's decisions in Nagaraju v. Mahalingappa3 and A.T. Thippeswamy v. Karnataka Electricity Board4, do not stand in the way of treating the appellant's representation as his resistance or obstruction for the purpose of Section 16 of the Telegraph Act. Before passing an order under Section 16(1), the District Magistrate has necessarily to issue notice to all persons interested and give them an opportunity to state their objections, if any. Before passing an order under Section 16(1), the District Magistrate has necessarily to issue notice to all persons interested and give them an opportunity to state their objections, if any. Without giving such an opportunity the District Magistrate will not have any material, at any rate, adequate material to decide whether he should pass an order that the authorities shall be permitted to draw the line. 4. In paragraph 23 of the decision in. Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Limited, the Court held as follows.- "It is clear from the wording of Section 16, and particularly from the expression 'the District Magistrate may, in his discretion', that an order will not be forthcoming automatically. A District Magistrate may in his discretion in a given case refuse or decline to pass an order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise the powers. The wording is significant. The District Magistrate does not grant permission to the authority. But he orders that the authority 'shall be permitted'. The discretion conferred by the section on the District Magistrate is certainly a judicial discretion, and, in cases where the District Magistrate refuses to pass an order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 10, it is inconceivable that' the telegraph authority may, notwithstanding such refusal, continue to exercise such powers. The wording of the section is thus itself indicative of the fact that in cases of resistance or obstruction the District Magistrate will have to decide whether the authority should be permitted or not to exercise the powers under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act. This necessarily means that the telegraph authority cannot override or ignore the resistance or obstruction and continue to exercise the powers under Section 10 notwithstanding such resistance or obstruction. It follows that, when an owner or occupier resists or obstructs the exercise of the power under Section 10, the telegraph authority will have to approach the District Magistrate for an order under sub-section (1) of Section 16 and can exercise the power under Section 10 only in cases where the District Magistrate deems it fit to pass an order that he shall be permitted to do so. The power conferred by Section 10 is thus a conditional power; conditional on an order being passed under Section 16(1) by the District Magistrate that the authority may be permitted, in case of resistance or obstruction, to exercise the power. This is so not only in regard to a telegraph authority but to the public officer or any other person authorised under the Electricity Act, 1910. We are fortified in this view by what is provided by sub-section (2) of Section 16. If the telegraph authority has the power, notwithstanding the resistance or obstruction, to exercise the powers under Section 10, the resistance or obstruction by the owner or occupier, we conceive, would be an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code; 1860. That section makes voluntary obstruction to any public servant in the discharge of his public functions an offence, and such an offence is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both". In paragraph 28, the Full Bench further held as follows.- "Before passing an order under Section 16(1) the District Magistrate has necessarily to issue notice to all persons interested and give them an opportunity to state their objections, if any. Without giving such an opportunity he will not have any material, at any rate, adequate material to decide whether he should pass an order that the authority shall be permitted". We agree with the above views of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. 5. Therefore, the writ appeal is disposed of in the following terms.- (i) The judgment of the Single Judge is set aside; (ii) In case respondents 3 and 4 still intend to draw the High Tension power line of 66 KV. over the appellant's land, in view of the resistance and obstruction already offered by the appellant, respondents 3 and 4 shall seek permission of the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act; (iii) If respondents 3 and 4 seek such permission the District Magistrate shall consider the matter and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the appellant and considering his objections, if any; Till permission is granted by the District Magistrate, respondents 3 and 4 are restrained from proceeding with the further construction/erection of the High Tension Power line over the appellant's land.