IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27474 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SADANANDAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, PANICKENMATTAYIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PUTHENCRUZ. 3. GEETHA SASIDHARAN, KIZHANGATTIL HOUSE, (MARIBHAGATH), KADAMATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1&2 SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.27474 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property through which the 2nd respondent proposes to draw electric lines for giving electricity connection to the 3rd respondent. Since the petitioner objected to the drawing of the electric line, respondents 2 and 3 approached the 4th respondent-Additional District Magistrate, who has issued Ext.P2 order permitting the 2nd respondent to draw electric line through the petitioner's property. The petitioner's contention is that the Additional District Magistrate has not considered the other alternate routes suggested by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there are two other alternate routes, through which line can be drawn to give electricity connection to the 3rd respondent without causing inconvenience. The 2nd respondent would contend that there is no inconvenience to the petitioner in so far as there is already a post in the petitioner's property, which is a paddy land from which, line is to be drawn for only 3.5 meters to another post put in the canal going by the side of the petitioner's property. A sketch is also provided to me showing all the three routes. 2. The learned standing counsel for the KESB would submit that in respect of one of the two alternate routes suggested by the petitioner, line has to be drawn through very thick vegetation and drawing of the line would require cutting of several trees. Regarding 2 the other route suggested by the petitioner, the standing counsel would point out that it would go through the property of two other persons. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner's property is a paddy land and a post already exists in the petitioner's property. There is an electric line right across the petitioner's property upto to that post. What is now proposed is to draw electric line only for a distance of 3.5 meters to another post to be put in the canal adjacent to the petitioner's property from the same post already existing in the petitioner's property. I do not think that the decision taken by the Additional District Magistrate granting permission to the 2nd respondent to draw electric line through the petitioner's property is in any way perverse by any standards. The petitioner has no allegation of mala fides also. Without a finding of perversity or mala fides, I cannot interfere with the Additional District Magistrate's order, which is the law laid down by this Court in Valsamma Thomas v. Additional District Magistrate [1997 (2) KLT 979]. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3