IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11185 of 2009(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VINOD, S/O.SAHADEVAN, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, MANKODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KADAKKAL ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KADACKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SUKUMARAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MANKODE P.O., MANKODE, KADACKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V.PRAMOD R3 BY ADV. MR. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB R4 BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.11185/2009 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE PROPOSED LINE AND THE ROUTE SUGGESTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.11185 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P2, an order passed by the first respondent, exercising his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. Briefly noted the facts of the case are that, the 4th respondent made an application for electric connection. Realizing that, if the line is drawn as proposed, it will be cutting across the petitioner's property, he raised objections. Alternately, he also suggested that the line could be drawn through the eastern corner of his property. In view of the objection, the 3rd respondent applied to the first respondent for removing the obstruction. This resulted in Ext.P2 order. 3. Although several contentions on the validity of Ext.P2 have been raised, I do not think it necessary to WP(c).No.1115/09 2 pronounce on those contentions. This is for the reason that the Petitioner has submitted before me that the line could be drawn thorough the alternate route suggested by him, which is through the eastern corner of his property, and that supply could be made to the premises of the 4th respondent without causing any damage to any 3rd parties' properties. It is stated that if line could be drawn as suggested by him, damage which will, otherwise be caused to his property, will be reduced considerably and that for this purpose he is willing to incur the additional expenditure if any, that is required by the Board. 4. Having heard the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, Electricity Board and the 4th respondent, I feel it is only appropriate that the 3rd respondent considers the feasibility of the suggestion made by the petitioner and if it is feasible to accept the same. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 6. That on the production of a copy of this judgment and within 2 weeks thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall WP(c).No.1115/09 3 examine the feasibility of the suggestion made by the Petitioner to draw line thorough the eastern corner of his property and without causing damage to g any body else's property to the premises of the 4th respondent. 7. It is directed that in case the suggestion made by the petitioner is found to be technically feasible, line shall be drawn through the alignment suggested by the petitioner and the petitioner will pay in advance, the additional expense that is required, for drawing the line in the manner as suggested by him. It is clarified that in the event, the suggestion is not found feasible or if the petitioner fails to remit the additional cost that he is called upon to pay, within the time allowed for remittance, the respondents will be free to draw line as presently proposed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.1115/09 4