IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1328 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- IN WPC.24285/2009 DATED 25.8.2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALIAS, ARRESSERIL, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, ARTHUNKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SREEJITH, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (IN CHARGE), ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- C.O.C.1328/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate exercising powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, was disposed of by judgment dated 25.8.2009 with the following directions. (i).That on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall examine the technical feasibility of drawing the line through the eastern boundary of the property as shown by the petitioner in Ext.P1 sketch produced in this writ petition. (ii).It is directed that if it is technically feasible and if the beneficiary is willing to incur additional expenditure, the line will be drawn as mentioned by him. It is also clarified that in case the beneficiary is not willing and the petitioner is willing to bear additional expenses, that will also be considered. (iii).It is made clear that if for any reason, the aforementioned proposal is found to be not feasible or practical, it will be open to the 1st respondent to draw the line as allowed in Ext.P2 order passed by the 2nd respondent. C.O.C.1328/09 2 2. It is stated that without complying with the directions, line was drawn by the respondent as allowed in the order by the Additional District Magistrate. In view of the allegations in the petition, by order dated 4.12.2009 the respondent was directed to file an affidavit. Accordingly, he has filed an affidavit producing a letter dated 7.10.2009 issued by the Additional District Magistrate. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed, it is stated that the predecessor of the respondent examined the feasibility of the proposal made by the petitioner for drawing the line and the alternate alignment suggested was found to be not feasible. It is stated that the matter was reported to the Additional District Magistrate and pursuant to the clearance granted by the Additional District Magistrate as per Ext.R1(a), the line was drawn. 3. In the light of these averments, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for proceeding against the respondent, under the provisions of the contempt of Courts Act. This petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs