IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 24196 of 2010(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEDHARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 83, S/O.NEELAKANTAN NAMBOOTHIRI, MANNANAMPATTAMANA, MANAGING TRUSTEE, KARAKKAD SREE SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE, KAVALAPPARA, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K S E B, SHORNUR-679 121. 3. SREEJA, D/O.KAMALAM, KONDAYIL HOUSE, KARRAKKAD, KAVALAPARA, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD-679 121. 4. VIJALAKSHMI, KUNNATHUR PADINJARETHIL HOUSE, KAVALAPARA, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD-679 121. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B, R3 BY ADVS. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM, SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON, R4 BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, SRI.R.SREEHARI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24196 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 2nd November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Managing Trustee of Karakkad Sree Subramanya Temple. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent whereby permission to draw electric line was granted for the purpose of giving electrical service connection to the third respondent for agricultural purposes. The grievance of the petitioner is that though they have suggested certain alternative routes for drawing electric line for the purpose of granting electrical connection as demanded by the third respondent, the said aspect was not properly considered by the first respondent while passing Ext.P3 order. It is submitted that a bare perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that the said contentions were considered without any application of mind. The fact that drawing of line through the proposed route would cause considerable inconvenience to the procession during the festivals conducted in the temple was not properly considered. A perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that though the contentions raised by the petitioner were not extensively considered while passing Ext.P3 it was on finding that the present proposal would WP(C).No.24196/2010 2 cause only the minimum inconvenience to the petitioner herein that the permission to draw line through the proposed route was granted as per Ext.P3. It is a fact that despite obtaining Ext.P3 order in her favour, the third respondent is yet to get electrical connection. A close scrutiny of Ext.P2 would undoubtedly reveal that it is not infected with any patent illegalities inviting interference. Therefore, considering all the other said aspects, I am of the view that the second respondent should be allowed to draw electric line through the proposed route through which the second respondent was given permission to draw the line by the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner then, prays for a clarification to the effect that drawing of line through the proposed route shall not deprive the petitioner the right to seek for shifting of the line. Taking into account the said situation and submissions this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- The second respondent shall draw the electric line for the purpose of granting electric supply as applied by the third respondent and as permitted as per Ext.P3 in terms of Ext.P3. However, it will be open to the petitioner to submit an application for shifting of the electric line in accordance with law. In case the petitioner submits such an application, at a later point of time, that shall be considered by the WP(C).No.24196/2010 3 second respondent, in accordance with law, with notice to the concerned parties. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS