IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5365 of 2008(L) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ RAJESH ,AGED 36, S/O.MANI, MANAKKATTUMPADY, PALIAKKARA, CHITTISSERY THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRIC SUB-DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OLLUR. 3. THE SECRETARY, BLOCK PANCHAYAT KODAKARA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRN. R2 BY SHRI P. P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO. 5365 OF 2008 L PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF PETEITION FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AND ROUGH SKETCH FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.5/07 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COUR, IRINJALAKUDA. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT IN OS NO.5/07. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C4/SR/ET/58/07 K-DIS DATED 29.1.2008 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 5365 OF 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the first respondent, Additional District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act permitting drawal of electric line for giving connection to the third respondent Panchayat for effecting connection to the Corporation. Petitioner filed a counter affidavit before the ADM pointing out that there are other alternatives and the line could be drawn through the canal bund. It is pointed out lines were drawn through the canal bund. Ext.P2 is the copy of the Counter Affidavit filed by the petitioner. Petitioner had also filed civil suit earlier as evident from Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the Commission Report filed in the said Suit. Thereafter, Ext.P5 order is passed. In Ext.P5, the Additional District Magistrate has ordered as follows: WPC. 5365/08 L 2 "Site was inspected together with Assistant Executive Engineer. Respondent 1 present. Panchayat represented by Vice President. The proposal for fresh OH line is right through the middle of the property of respondents. The alternatives are through canal bund and through wet land. Canal bund is badly damaged due to quarrying of clay and mud. The wet land is water logged even in summer. It is very difficult to erect and maintain electric post either on canal bund or in wet land. No connection is seen 15 metres or 20 metres away from the motor shed. Order The alternatives are through canal bund and wet land. The canal bund is badly damaged due to quarrying of clay and mud. The wet land is water logged even in summer. There are deep pits in it. It will be difficult to erect and maintain electric posts either in canal bund or in wet land. Hence alternatives are rejected. No connection is seen within 20 metres radius of the motor shed as suggested in the counter. In order to reduce inconvenience the entire fresh OH line is to be WPC. 5365/08 L 3 drawn along respondent one's northern and eastern boundary. Proposal accepted as above. Assistant Executive Engineer is permitted to draw the line accordingly." 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Electricity Board as also the learned Government Pleader. Counsel for petitioner would reiterate his contentions. He would also point out that there is an existing post and line can be drawn along the canal bund. This is a case where there was a site inspection. The Authority has considered the alternatives and found that it would be difficult to erect and maintain electric posts in the canal bund or in the wet land. Having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by this Court and as this Court does not sit as an appellate authority and correct errors as it is, it may not be open to the petitioner to impugn the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This a case where the Authority has considered the alternatives and arrived at the conclusion that the WPC. 5365/08 L 4 alternatives are liable to be rejected. There was a site inspection also. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge