IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2528 of 2010(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THOMAS.T.K, THEKKEVAYALIL HOUSE, CHENNADU.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.E.B, ERATTUPETTA. 3. ELIKKUTTY CHACKO, VAKKEL HOUSE, CHENNADU, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THOMAS, KIZHAKKETHOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHENNADU, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOYCHANDRAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R3 BY MR.RAJEEV V.KURUP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 2528 of 2010-M ---------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court, challenging the order passed by the first respondent, whereby the first respondent has been permitted to draw the line through the property of the fourth respondent, as borne by Ext.P2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the very same respondent had already passed Ext.P1 order, causing line to be drawn through the property of the third respondent, which however was subsequently modified and Ext.P2 order was passed, which is stated as not correct or sustainable. The petitioner wants to have the line to be drawn through the property of the 'third respondent' himself, so as to avail the connection. 2. The third respondent has filed a detailed affidavit pointing out the facts and figures, asserting that the prayer sought for by the petitioner is only with ulterior motives. It is also contended that Ext.P1 order was passed by the first respondent against a 'dead person'. It is also stated that the property of the W.P(C) No. 2528 of 2010-M 2 third respondent is situated on the eastern side of the property of the petitioner. The case put forth by the third respondent is that the third respondent has already permitted to draw the line to provide the electric connection and four electric posts have already been installed in the property of the third respondent. If the line is to be drawn through the property of the third respondent, additional 'four posts' will have to be installed for providing connection to the petitioner and on the other hand, if the line is to be drawn through the property of the fourth respondent, only 'two posts' need to be installed. It is also contended that the petitioner has filed a statement before the authorities of the Board, stating that he need connection only if the line is drawn through the property of the third respondent and not otherwise. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that Ext.P2 order has been passed by the first respondent, taking note of the entire facts and circumstances and that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the fourth respondent has already given the consent W.P(C) No. 2528 of 2010-M 3 for drawing the line through his property, so as to provide connection to the petitioner and it is accordingly, that Ext.P2 order has been passed by the first respondent, which hence is not assailable under any circumstances. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is absolutely no fault or lapse on the part of the first respondent in passing Ext.P2 order, which is very much in tune with the statutory requirements and also with regard to the actual facts and figures. There is nothing arbitrary or illegal and the course pursued by the first respondent is not assailable under any circumstances. The claim of the petitioner to have the line to be drawn only through the property of the third respondent and not through the property of the fourth respondent does't appear to be palatable and is apparently devoid of any bonafides. This Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge W.P(C) No. 2528 of 2010-M 4