IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34987 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.G.SIVADASAN, ROURKALA HOUSE, THRIKKANNAMANGAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. MR.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SASIKALA, "SANDHYA BHAVANAM", THRIKKANNAMANGAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 34987 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order, whereby the 2nd respondent Additional District Magistrate has permitted the 3rd respondent to draw electricity lines to give electricity connection to the 1st respondent, in exercise of the powers of the 2nd respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Petitioner's contention is that there is a more feasible alternate route through the property of the petitioner himself, which should be adopted instead of the proposed route. 2. This is opposed by the Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board. He points out that the present proposal is to draw electricity line through a “Nadavarampu” which will not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner. The Standing counsel also submits that the alternate route suggested by the petitioner is not feasible since that area is a hilly terrain whereas the drawing of line through the “Nadavarampu” would not cause any problems. W.P(C) No. 34987 of 2009 -2- 3. This is contradicted by the counsel for the petitioner by stating that by drawing electricity lines as proposed many trees of the petitioner will have to b cut. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I note that despite service of notice on the petitioner, petitioner has not chosen to appear before the Additional District Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Admittedly the route proposed by the 3rd respondent is through a Nadavarambu, along the boundary of the petitioner's property. The mere fact that trees are to be cut for drawing line cannot make the proposal not feasible. On going through Ext.P4, I do not find any infirmity in the same and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge