IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25444 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SALEENA BEEVI, POKKATTUVILAYIL, ELIPPAKULAM, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHUTHA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KAYAMKULAM. 4. RAMANAN, POKKATTUVILAYIL, ELIPPAKULAM, KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25444 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P5 order, whereby in exercise of powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, the 2nd respondent has granted permission to the 3rd respondent to draw electricity line through the petitioner's property for giving electricity connection to the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the proposed route would seriously affect the enjoyment of her property insofar as the proposed route would cross a portion of her property where she has constructed a cattle shed. She would further submit that a more feasible and less expensive route suggested by the petitioner has been refused to be considered by the District Magistrate. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate direction or order calling for records leading to Ext. P5 and quash the same; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner as to the feasibility of alternate routes before drawing electric supply to the 4th respondent; (iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 not to draw line through the property of the petitioner for giving electric connection to the residence of 4th respondent pending final disposal of this writ petition.” 2. Standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board submits that drawing of electricity lines as proposed by the 3rd respondent would not in any way inconvenience the petitioner insofar as the proposal is to draw the electric line only through the extreme boundary of the petitioner's property and the line would not cross the petitioner's property at all. It is further submitted that the proposal is W.P.C. No. 25444/09 -: 2 :- to draw only weather proof lines and therefore no manner of inconvenience would be caused to the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. If the line is drawn along the boundaries of the petitioner's property, that too, using weather proof lines, I do not think that the petitioner would be in any way prejudiced. Therefore, making it abundantly clear that lines shall be drawn only through boundary of the petitioner's property, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.