IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 23270 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. HELAKKATTUKUNNU, MALAVATTOM, THIRUVILWAMALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR - 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHELAKKARA - 680586. 3. KUTTAN EZHUTHASSAN, MALAVATTOM, THIRUVILWAMALA - 680001. 4. DAMODARAN NAMBEESAN, KIZHAKKEMOOCHIKKAL THIRUVIWAMALA P.O. 5. RAJAN, CHELAKKOTTUKUNNU, KALAVATTOM, THIRUVILWAMALA - 680001. 6. PARVATHY, THELAKKATTUKUNNU, MALAVATTOM, THIRUVILWAMALA-680001. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R3 SMT.M.M.DEEPA FOR R3 SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) FOR R3 GP SMT. RAJASREE SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23270 of 2010 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.6.10 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).23270/2010 ....................... Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent/Additional District Magistrate exercising his power under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 permitting the second respondent to draw an electric line. The grievance of the petitioner is that an option which was suggested by him was not considered by the Magistrate. 2.A reading of Ext.P1 order shows that in the proposal made by the second respondent, two options were suggested. It is seen that those options were considered and an inspection of the site was also conducted. On such inspection and examination of the materials available, the first respondent accepted one of the options, which was found to be less injurious to the affected parties. It is accepting the said option that, Ext.P1 order was passed. 3.It is also evident from the pleadings that based on the above, the line has already been drawn. In such circumstances, I am not satisfied that Ext.P1 order calls for any interference W.P.(C).23270/10 2 of this Court. 4.Be that as it may, if the line drawn has caused any prejudice to the petitioner, it is open to him to apply for shifting of the line by making a suitable request in that regard. If any such application is made, the same will be considered in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs