IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 12165 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AMBIKA, KANICHIRA COLONY, KURIKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682031 2. THE ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682031. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682312. 5. APPUKKUTTAN, OTTAKANDATHIL HOUSE, KARIKODE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682314. 6. VARKEY, KOMULLIL, KARIKODE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682314. 7. N.B.JAYACHANDRAN, NAMMANNARIL, KARIKODE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682314. 8. AYYAPPAN, AKKAPADATHU HOUSE, KARIKODU, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682314. ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA FOR R6 SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 12165/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 21.12.2006 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.8.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.73813/10/M5 DATED 28.3.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) : A DETAILED LOCATION SKETCH SHOWING THE EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12165 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate on 28.3.2011 under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The fifth respondent applied for electricity connection by submitting an application to the fourth respondent. He made the fourth respondent believe that the petitioner and the eighth respondent had consented for drawing the electricity line through their properties. A service connection was accordingly given to the fifth respondent's residence on 3.8.2010. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had not given her consent. She therefore complained to the fourth respondent that the electricity line was drawn without obtaining her consent. The fourth respondent thereupon disconnected the supply on 28.9.2010 and thereafter moved the Additional District Magistrate by submitting an application dated 8.1.2010. The Additional District Magistrate thereupon issued notice to the WPC No.12165/2011 2 parties including the petitioner, the fifth respondent and others and passed Ext.P4 order dated 28.3.2011. The order reads as follows: “The petition is to remove the objection raised by the respondent against drawing electric line for effecting electric connection to the building of P.2. The P.1 had submitted one proposal for the purpose and the route is marked in the sketch, submitted along with the petition. As per the proposal 40 meters of O.H. Line and 25 meters of W.P. Line has to be drawn through the pathway leading to the residence of P.2. Heard all parties on 22.2.2011. The objection of the respondents are with respect to the boundary of pathway. P2 stated that he will deposit the amount, if any change in the route to be made. ORDER The route proposed by P1 is feasible. Respondent's objection is overruled and sanction is hereby recorded to give electric connection to the building of P2 as per the proposal of P1.” 3. Apart from the fact that the order is cryptic and does not give any reasons, the Additional District Magistrate has also noticed that the objection raised by the respondents before him including the petitioner was with respect to the boundary of the property. Ext.P2 objection filed by the petitioner would indicate that objection was that a line has been drawn across her property without her consent. I am therefore satisfied that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate cannot be sustained. WPC No.12165/2011 3 That apart, the Additional District Magistrate has also not caused the route to be inspected for the purpose of deciding whether it will adversely affect any of the objectors and whether the line can be drawn through any other route including the pathway leading to the residence of the fifth respondent. I accordingly allow the writ petition set aside Ext.P4 and direct the Additional District Magistrate to pass revised orders on the application filed by the fourth respondent after notice to and affording the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8 an opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that the existing electricity connection to the fifth respondent’s residence need not be disconnected or dismantled unless it is necessary to disconnect and dismantle it for the purpose of giving a fresh electricity connection to his residence through any other alternate route. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.12165/2011 4