IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26156 of 2008(L) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ALINGAL BALAN, S/O. KARI, VETTOM AMSOM, VEMANNA DESOM, P.O. VETTOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUBDIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ALATHIYUR DIVISION, POST ALATHIYUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MOOLASSERI KUNHUNNI, S/O. THUPPA, MOOLASSERI HOUSE, POST VETTOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R3 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 26156 OF 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd September, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P8 is challenged. By Ext.P8, permission has been granted by the Additional District Magistrate for drawing electric line from the post located in the property of the petitioner for giving connection to the third respondent. 2. I heard Shri Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary, the third respondent. The main complaint of the petitioner is that the alternate route which has been suggested by the petitioner has been turned down. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, there is already a temple existing in the property of the petitioner. It is stated that it may be necessary to put up two subsidiary temples and the exact location of those subsidiary temples is yet to be determined. He would submit that if the line is to be drawn from the post as permitted, it may hinder the construction of WPC. 26156/08 L 2 those subsidiary temples. He points out that, on the other hand, if the line is drawn from the post which is already standing on the property of the petitioner, no prejudice will be caused to the beneficiary. That line will have a distance of about 72 metres and consent of another person is necessary. It is pointed out by the senior counsel for petitioner that the said person also is interested in the construction of the temple and he has consented for the line being drawn from the said post. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner is prepared to bear the additional expenses involved for drawing the line from the said post suggested by the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, though interdicted by an oral direction of this Court, the line came to be drawn. It was energized, even though there was an oral direction not to energize. But, it was de-energized subsequently by an order of this Court. I feel that in view of the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is agreeable to the line being WPC. 26156/08 L 3 drawn from the post situated in his own property and also bearing the additional expenses, and the further submission that the owner of the other property has also consented and in view of the need projected by the petitioner, the matter should be reconsidered. But, at the same time, I feel that in the meantime, the line which is already drawn can be allowed to be energized. But, it is made clear that the fact that the line was drawn or the line was energized, will not stand in the way of the District Magistrate considering the alternate route. In other words, if it is found that the line can be drawn through the route as suggested by the petitioner, the fact that the line has been drawn and energized will not stand in the way of ordering connection to be given through the alternate route. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is quashed. The petitioner, the third respondent and the second respondent will be present before the first respondent Magistrate on 7.10.2008 at 11 AM. The Magistrate will take up the matter and issue notice to any other person who would be affected if the alternate route is to be sanctioned and proceed to decide the WPC. 26156/08 L 4 matter in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from 7.10.2008. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge