IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 4220 of 2011(B) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : - ---------------------- HEMA NARAYANAN, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O NARAYANAN NAIR, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, VENMONEY P.O. (EARM), CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 509. BY ADVS. SRI. S. JAYAKRISHNAN SMT. S. USHAKUMARI RESPONDENTS : - ------------------------ 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(K.S.E.B), ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KOLLAKADAVU-690 570. 3. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.P.V, POIKKATTUKIZHAKKETHIL, VENMONY.P.O, CHENGANNUR-689 509. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB FOR R2 SRI.V.B.BALACHANDRAN FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAJENDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4220 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.10.2010. EXT P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K. Dis N2 - 50300 /10 DATED 24.11.2010. EXT P3 : COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT R3 (a) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT R3 (b) : COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRD RESPONDENT, PROPOSED ELECTRIC LINE AND THE ALTERNATE PROPOSAL. EXT R2 (a) : COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH ISSUED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT. EXT R2 (b) : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FROM SMT. PONNAMMA, THARAYIL HOUSE, VENMANI TO ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KOLLAKADAVU DATED 21.10.2010. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 4220 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Exhibit P2 order dated 24.11.2010 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha where by he permitted the 3nd respondent to draw 22 metres of weather proof line from an electricity post already standing in the petitioner's land for the purpose of providing electricity connection to the residence of the third respondent who is none other than her husband's younger brother, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The main contention raised in this writ petition is that though initially notice was served on the petitioner and she had filed her objections evidenced by Ext.P1, she was not put on notice regarding the date on which the parties were heard and therefore on that ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is also contended there was no proper enquiry, that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P1 objections were considered and that electricity connection can be given to the third respondent's residence by drawing a weather proof line from the post from which electricity WP(C)No. 4220 of 2011 -2- connection has been given to the family house of the third respondent. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit resisting the writ petition. It is contended that the post from which the line is permitted to be drawn stands in a path way approximately three meters wide, that the said electricity post is situate close to the northern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner and that by drawing 18 metres of weather proof line electricity connection can be given to the residence of the third respondent. The second respondent has also filed a counter affidavit and produced along with as Ext.R2(a), a sketch showing the properties of the petitioner and the third respondent. It is contended that the challenge to Ext.P2 is without merit. 4. I heard Sri.S.Jayakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Anitha Ravindran, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Sri.S.Sajeevkumar K.Goapal learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board, and Sri.V.K.Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. I have also considered the pleadings and the materials on record. The Assistant Executive Engineer has in his counter affidavit stated WP(C)No. 4220 of 2011 -3- relying on Ext.R2(a) sketch that thouh the third respondent owns a building which is situate to the east of the premises to which connection is now sought, the neighbouring owner has filed Ext.R2(b) application dated 21.10.2010 to remove the electricity post standing in her property and to shift it elsewhere and that is the reason why the Board was obliged to suggest that electricity connection can be given to the residence of the third respondent by drawing 18 meters of weather proof line from the post marked “B” in Exhibit R2(a) sketch. The sketch makes it evident that the post marked “B” with sketch is situated close to the northern boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner the post is standing on a path way leading to her land. The path way has a width of approximately three meters. It is from that post that a weather proof line has been drawn to provide electricity connection to the petitioner's residence. Therefore the petitioner cannot contend that the post marked “B” with sketch causes inconvenience to her. As stated earlier, the post marked “B” is situated close to the northern boundary of the petitioner's land. The present proposal which is approved by the Additional Magistrate is to provide electricity connection to the third WP(C)No. 4220 of 2011 -4- respondent's residence by drawing 18 meters of weather proof line from that post. It is evident from the fact that the post is situated close to the northern boundary of the petitioner's land that the weather proof line will cross the property of the petitioner only for a very short distance. On the admitted facts I am therefore satisfied that the mere failure to hear the petitioner cannot result in invalidation of Ext. P2. Even if the petitioner had been heard, the first respondent could have on the admitted facts permitted the Board to draw the line in the manner indicated in Ext.P2. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //True Copy// PA to Judge.