IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14566 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. REV. JACOB P.SAMUEL, AGED 55, S/O.LATE SAMUEL, DIOCESAN TREASURER, C.S.I.DIOCESAN OFFICE, CATHEDRAL ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. HEADMISTRESS, C.M.S.L.P.SCHOOL, EZHUMATTOOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. K.S.E.B., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SOSAMMA, CHOWLITHANAM (EETTIKKARA),] KOTTAMKUDY, EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 & 3 SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R4 SRI.T.P.PRADEEP FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO. 14566 OF 2008 H PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.1.2008 FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.2.2008 ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2008 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 14566 OF 2008 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate granting permission to the Electricity Board to draw the electric line as proposed by the Board for giving connection to the fourth respondent. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent Electricity Board and also the counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. The proposal invlves drawing of sixty metres of over head line and thirtyfour metres of service wire. The over head line is proposed to draw from the service post of petitioners' School and the proposed route "AB" is through the property of the Church. Thereafter it is stated as follows: "The site was also inspected. From the site inspection, it is seen that if the alternative suggestion is accepted, another objection will arise against it and expenses will also be more. WPC. 14566/08 H 2 Proposal of the KSEB is the shortest and economically feasible. Effecting service connection to the beneficiary (first petitioner) by drawing line through outside to the school compound from the post situated beyond the School compound is found suitable in all aspects." On the above basis, the proposal was allowed. 2. According to petitioner, petitioner has filed Ext.P2 objection and there is an alternate route. I find from the impugned order that there has been a site inspection. This is a case where the Magistrate has also taken note of the alternate proposal, but found that it would involve crossing of the properties of others. It is found that the proposed route is found to be the shortest and economically feasible route. It is also stated that by effecting drawing of the line through the outside of the school compound from the post situated beyond the school compound is found suitable in all aspects. Having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it may not be possible for me to find that the impugned order is such that it requires interference under WPC. 14566/08 H 3 Article 226. Learned counsel for petitioner would point out that actually the persons though whose properties the line can be drawn and which is the alternative route, are prepared to give their consent. He also submits that if the line is drawn through their properties, the petitioner will meet the additional expenses also for drawing the line along the alternative route. In such circumstances, I repel the challenge against Ext.P5. Counsel for petitioner would point out that if the line is drawn through the property of the petitioner, it would cause injury to the students. Learned standing counsel submits that the line is not being drawn across the school compound. The line will be drawn as far as away from the school compound as possible. But, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is ordered that Ext.P5 will not be implemented for a period of three weeks from today and in the meantime, if written consent is made available by the owners of the properties through which the alternate route can be drawn and the petitioner meets the additional expenses for drawing the line, connection will be given to the fourth WPC. 14566/08 H 4 respondent through that route. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge