IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22256 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PIOUS JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, VANYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKE KANNATTU HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA, ERAMALLORE P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, POOCHAKKAL, POOCHAKKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KUTHIATHODE, KUTHIATHODE P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, "VYDUTHI BHAVAN", THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. VASUMATHY, KANNATTY NIGARTH HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE AND POST, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.22256 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7, an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha, exercising powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 164 of the Indian Telegraph Act 2003. 2. The facts of the case are that, the 5th respondent had applied for supply of energy to his premises. According to the petitioner, along with the application, a fabricated consent purported to have been given by his mother was also produced and accordingly line was drawn for giving supply to the premises of the 5th respondent. As according to the petitioner the same was done without his consent or obtaining orders from the District Magistrate, he raised objections to the drawing of line, as a result of which the WP(c).No.22256/09 2 line was not energized. Thereupon, Ext.P5 application was filed by the 5th respondent before the 6th respondent for removing of the obstruction offered by the petitioner. Before the 6th respondent the petitioner filed Ext.P6 objection and was also heard on 10.6.2006, when a local inspection was fixed on 17.7.2009. It is stated that, on account of the heavy monsoon, inspection was not conducted. Despite all this on 17.7.2009 itself Ext.P7 order was passed overruling the objections raised. It is in this circumstance the writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, while passing Ext.P7 order the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner were ignored by the Additional District Magistrate. The last paragraph of Ext.P7 shows that, the Additional District Magistrate found the route suggested by the Officers of the Board to be a feasible one. It is also stated that the routes suggested by the petitioner were also inspected and that they were found to be inconvenient. Apart WP(c).No.22256/09 3 from this factual finding I do not think that, it is within the power of the Additional District Magistrate to choose an alignment other than the one suggested by the officers of the Electricity Board. The fact that the power of the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Act did not extent to the choice of route through which the line is to be drawn is settled by the Full Bench in the judgment in Xavier V. Kerala State Electricity Board (1979 KLT 80), which was also followed in the judgment in Kunjulakshmi V. District Magistrate (1986 KLT 1320). 4. True, counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the learned single Judge in Manikkam V. Asst. Engineer (2008(1) KLT 647). A reading of the judgment shows that, that judgment was rendered without noticing the Full Bench judgment and the earlier judgment referred to above. In view of all these, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner is only to be rejected. WP(c).No.22256/09 4 5. The counsel for the petitioner then contends that, though an inspection was fixed on 17.7.2009, no inspection was actually conducted. However having regard to the statement in the last paragraph of Ext.P7 and as there is nothing to conclude otherwise, I am not in a position to accept the plea now raised by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel then contended that in terms of clause 3 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, consent of the neighboring owner is necessary. In my view, in a proceedings where objections have been raised and order of the Additional District Magistrate has been obtained, it is not necessary to insist on the consent of the neighboring property owner. On the whole, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.22256/09 5