IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34019 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SASIDHARAN, S/O. KESAVAN, SJEEKA VILASOM, M.R. KUNNU, BHARATHEEPURAM P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KULATHUPUZHA, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. 4. SMT. LEELA, SMITHA MANDIRAM, M.R. KUNNU, 11TH MILE, BHARATHEEPURAM P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 5. PONNAMMA, SMITHA MANDIRAM, 11TH MILE, BHARATHIPURAM P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DIST. (R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.14065/09) ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2-3 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 26.11.09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.29.4.08. P3. COPY OF THE SKETCH. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.31.10.08 BY R1. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R3A. COPY OF THE SKETCH. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 34019 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property through which respondents 2 and 3 propose to draw electric line to give electricity connection to the 4th respondent, whose mother is the 5th respondent. The petitioner's contention is that the proposed route would cut across the petitioner's property and there is a more feasible route as shown in the sketch produced as Ext.P3. However, despite the petitioner pointing out the alternate route, by Ext.P4 order, the 1st respondent permitted respondents 2 and 3 to draw line as proposed by them. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 does not show that the 1st respondent has properly considered the feasibility of the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, but the 1st respondent simply accepted the version put forward by respondents 2 and 3. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed, in which, respondents 2 and 3 would take a contention that the route proposed by them does not cut across the petitioner's property at all. They would contend that although the sketch produced by the petitioner as Ext.P3 is substantially correct, the route shown therein as the one proposed by respondents 2 and 3 is not correct. They have produced Ext.R3(a) w.p.c.34019/08 2 sketch showing the correct route, through which they propose to draw the line, which is PQR shown therein. According to the 3rd respondent, that line is drawn along a path way by the side of the petitioner's property and not through the petitioner's property. The contention raised by the 3rd respondent is that the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, which is DEFGH shown in Ext.R3(a), is a pathway in a rubber estate and for drawing line along that route, plenty of rubber trees have to be cut incurring heavy expenditure for paying compensation to the owners of the trees. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the contention of the 3rd respondent that the line is to be drawn along the pathway adjacent to the petitioner's property is not correct. According to him, there is no such pathway. 5. Even assuming that there is no pathway as suggested by the petitioner, going by Ext.R3(a) sketch, the line does not cross the petitioner's property at all, but would only go along the boundary of the petitioner's property. As such, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by such drawing of electric lines. In the above circumstances, I enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is prepared to pay the additional expenditure which the Board would have to incur including the expenses for paying compensation for the trees to be cut, if the line is drawn through the w.p.c.34019/08 3 alternate route suggested by the petitioner, which is DEFGH shown in Ext.R3(a) sketch. Although initially the counsel for the petitioner protested, ultimately he undertook to pay the additional expenses that would be incurred by the Board for paying compensation for the trees to be cut if the line is drawn along the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. But the counsel for the Board points out that if the owners of the properties by the side of that pathway object, the line may not be able to be drawn. 6. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the 3rd respondent undertaking to pay the additional expenses including the expenses for paying compensation for the trees to be cut for drawing electricity line to the 4th respondent along the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. On that undertaking, respondents 2 and 3 shall draw line along the alternate route. If the owners of the properties by the side of the route through which the electricity line has to be drawn through the alternate route object to the drawing of the line, it would be open to respondents 2 and 3 to approach the 1st respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The above process shall be taken up and completed within a period of one month. The undertaking of the petitioner shall be filed in a stamp paper worth Rs.50/- within one w.p.c.34019/08 4 week. If the petitioner fails to file the undertaking as above, it would be open to respondents 2 and 3 to draw the electric line as originally proposed. It is also made clear that if the petitioner later fails to pay the additional expenses as directed above, it would be open to any of the respondents to file a contempt petition against the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge