IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 34041 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LIZYAMMA, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOSEPH GEORGE, KULATHUNKAL THUNDATHIL, VAZHOOR EAST P.O. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(GENERAL) AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 4. MATHEW GEORGE, MELEKKATTU, VAZHOOR EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1&2 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI CYRIAC KURIAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.34041/09 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TYPED COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1584/03 OF THE SRO, VAZHOOR TOGETHER WITH THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED. EXT.P2: COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE LIE OF PROPERTIES TOGETHER WITH THE PROPOSED LINE AND THE ALTERNATIVE LINE SUGGESTED. EXT.P3: COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE KSEB BEFORE the ADM UNDER SECTION 164 OF ELECTRICITY ACT. EXT.P4: COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADM. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER DT.18.11.09 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, ADM. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE dsn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34041 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam on 18.11.2009 under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act according sanction to the second respondent to draw an electricity line through a pathway and through the petitioner’s property for the purpose of providing electricity connection to the residence of Sri.Mathew Varghese is under challenge in this writ petition. The fourth respondent herein, who is stated to be the beneficiary is described as Mathew George, Ext.P5 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate discloses that the beneficiary is Sri.Mathew Varghese. The notice issued from this Court to the fourth respondent has been returned with the endorsement 'no such person'. Therefore, the fourth respondent has not so far been served. 2. Ext.P5 order impugned in the writ petition discloses that the proposal which was objected to by the writ petitioner was to draw an over head line for a length of 46 meters and weather proof line for a length of 23 meters through the pathway leading WPC No.34041/2009 2 to the residence of the beneficiary and through a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner. The alternate route pointed out by the petitioner was through the lands which support thick tree growth. The Additional District Magistrate inspected the route suggested by the Kerala State Electricity Board and the alternate route suggested by the petitioner and found that the if the line is drawn through the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, it will have to cross the properties of three persons and the proposed line will have to pass through thick vegetation. He also noticed that one electricity post will have to be erected in a drainage having a width of only one foot. The Additional District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the route suggested by the Assistant Executive Engineer is the most feasible and convenient route. 3. Ext.P5 order was issued on 18.11.2009. Pursuant thereto, electricity connection was given to the residence of the fourth respondent. Ext.P3, the sketch produced by the second respondent along with the application filed by him before the Additional District Magistrate discloses that the line is proposed WPC No.34041/2009 3 to be drawn through the pathway. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to show, relying on Ext.P4 sketch, that the line would also pass through a portion of her property, no concrete materials have been placed on record to show that the line would pass through the property of the petitioner. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the challenge to Ext.P5 is without any merit. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps