IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5516 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHAJAHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, CHENTHARA HOUSE, KUTTAMASSERY, ALUVA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (VATTATHARA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ALUVA SECTION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB, ALUVA SECTION ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1, R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PELADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 5516 OF 2009 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th February, 2009 JUDGMENT The prayer in the Writ Petition is to abandon the plan of re-positioning the 11 KV electric line on the Chovara Ferry Road. A mandamus is sought to dispose of Ext.P1 representation. According to petitioner, he is the owner of fifteen cents of land and a residential building. A 11 KV line is in existence on the eastern side of the Chovara Ferry Road. It is stated that due to political interference, there is attempt to re- position the above electric line from the eastern side of the Chovara Ferry Road to the western side. It is stated that while the present position is not causing any problem, shifting will cause threat and inconvenience. It is his case that there is no reason. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board, who got instructions. He points out that an WPC.5516/09 H 2 order has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate on the basis of a complaint and the line has been drawn and charged. It is pointed out that the line has been drawn over a public road and that it is done on the basis of the order of the Additional District Magistrate. The order of the Additional District Magistrate is not in challenge before this Court. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge