IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 3029 of 2007 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.25621/2005 DATED 06/09/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- POMMILERI PUSHPAVALLI, W/O.K.M.BABU, ANANDA VIHAR, KAYALODE, MAMBRAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.M.PRAMEELA, W/O.V.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, 'KRISHNAPRIYA', KAYALODE, MAMBRAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. POMMILERI SHYAMALA, D/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, PEEDIKAKANDY VEEDU, P.O.MAMBRAM- 670 741. 3. POMMILERI KUNHANANDAN NAMBIAR, S/O.RAMAN NAMBIAR, PUTHEN VEEDU, ERUVATTY AMSOM, ERUVATTY DESOM, 670 642. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PINARAYI. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB R1 TO R3 BY SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN & SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.3029 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 7th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Appellant being aggrieved by the electrical line passing over her property had approached the Additional District Magistrate. 2. The Tahsildar has submitted Ext.P2 report and plan suggesting the convenient area through which the line can be shifted. The plan so submitted by the Tahsildar was not found acceptable by the Additional District Magistrate since there is a pending suit regarding the western boundary of the property in question. However, the Additional District Magistrate has accepted the plan submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer and had directed the appellant to bear the expenses for shifting the line. 3. Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the Additional District Magistrate, the appellant was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.25621 of 2005. 4. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board had produced a plan for drawing the electrical line. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the plan so submitted by the Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board, has found that the said plan is more feasible and accordingly has accepted the plan and directed the Electricity Board to draw the electrical line in accordance with the said plan. Aggrieved by the said orders and directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. 5. We are not experts in the field of drawing electrical lines. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has thought it fit to accept the plan which is prepared W.A.No.3029 of 2007 2 by the Electricity Board, which according to the learned Single Judge is the most feasible one in the facts and circumstances of the case. Acceptance of the said plan produced by the Electricity Board, by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, cannot be said to be either on an erroneous thinking or on an erroneous conclusion. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge need not be interfered by us. 6. Accordingly the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Any observation made by the learned Single Judge in the course of the order would not come in the way of the learned Munsiff deciding the lis between the parties which is pending before the civil court. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns