IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 11389 of 2008(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.M.SULAIMAN RAWTHAR, PALLIZHAKKATHIL, KURICHIMUTTOM P.O., VALLANA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, ARAMULA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. FATHIMA BEEVI, PALLIKKIZHAKKETHIL, KURICHIMUTTOM P.O., VALLANA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 TO 2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 11389 of 2008-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the third respondent under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, produced as Ext.P5 herein. The proceedings were issued by to provide electricity connection to the fourth respondent herein. 2. The petitioner raised objections in the matter and the enquiry was conducted by the third respondent. Ultimately, it was found that connection can be given by using only 20 meters of service wire. 3. The petitioner challenged the order by raising various grounds in the writ petition. It appears that the parties are close relatives, but the relationship was far from cordial. Mainly it is pointed out that it is not required to draw the line through the property of the petitioner and it may destroy the crops standing in the property. 4. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 3.4.2008 as follows: “Notice. If line is to be drawn to the fourth respondent's property that shall wpc 11389/2008 2 only be along the boundaries of the petitioner's property and not across.” 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that the line has been drawn in terms of the interim order passed by this Court and the matter can be closed accordingly. 6. Since line has already been drawn as directed in the interim order along the boundaries of the petitioner's property and not across, Ext.P5 will stand modified to that extent. In that view of the matter, no further orders are called for in the matter and the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/