IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20165 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ABDUL RAHIM, A.R.MANZIL, MEEYANA MURI, VEILNELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VELIYAM. 3. SMT. LAILA BEEVI, JASMIN MANZIL, MEEYANA P.O., OYOOR, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R3 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R3 SRI.K.K.RAJEEV FOR R3 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20165/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT 23.3.05 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 27.2.2006 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 9.8.06 IN WPC NO.14312/06 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32500/06 DT 9.4.2007 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20165 OF 2007 (A) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the 1st respondent exercising his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act. 2. Facts of the case, briefly noticed, are that the 3rd respondent applied for power supply to her premises. The proposal was to draw the line through a pathway lying to the South of the petitioner's property and through an alignment which is close to the petitioner's residential building. 3. Petitioner raised objections and thereupon the 2nd respondent moved the 1st respondent for removal of the obstruction. Notice was issued and Ext.P1 objection was filed by the petitioner. Proceedings concluded by Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent. That was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No.14312/06. That writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment quashing Ext.P2 order and directing that the matter be reconsidered in the manner as directed therein. WPC 20165/07 :2 : 4. In the meantime, line was also drawn and in pursuance to Ext.P3 judgment, the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P4 order has been passed finding that the obstructions raised by the petitioner were unsustainable. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the ADM did not consider the alternate routes suggested by him. The position of law regarding the power of the ADM is an enquiry under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and is settled by this Court in the judgments in Kunjulakshmi v. District Magistrate (1986 KLT 1320) and Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate (1997(2) KLT 979). In these judgments, it is held that the power of choice of an alignment or route through which the line is to pass is beyond the enquiry by the ADM and that his jurisdiction is only to find out whether the obstruction offered by an affected party is justified or not. If that be the legal position, I cannot find fault with the ADM even if he has not considered the alternate routes suggested by the petitioner. 6. In so far as the alignment proposed by the 2nd respondent and accepted by the 1st respondent is concerned, a reading of Ext.P4 shows that the line is to pass through a pathway WPC 20165/07 :3 : having 7 meters width. True, the alignment of the line is only 70 centimeters away from the petitioner's residential house. However, having regard to the fact that the line is a concealed one, I do not think, that by itself can be of any prejudice to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Rule 79 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 submit that the clearance of 70 centimeters available does not satisfy the requirements of the rules. However, a closer reading of the rule shows that the said rule is applicable only in respect of overhead lines and not service lines, which alone is drawn to the premises of the 3rd respondent. 8. But however, if the petitioner has any justifiable reason to seek shifting of the line, it is always open to the petitioner to seek appropriate orders in that behalf. It is directed that if the petitioner approaches the authorities seeking shifting of the line, request if any made, will be considered one merits with notice to all concerned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp