IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 885 of 2008(L) ------------------------------ ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.9562/2006 DATED 22/11/2007 ) .................... PETITIONER/ 4TH RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------------ SMITHA NAMBIAR, VENGAYIL MADOM, KUTTUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN, SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. V.LEELAVATHI AMMA, D/O LAKSHMI AMMA, HOUSE -WIFE, VENGAYIL MADOM, KUTTUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PAZHAYANGADI,KANNUR. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KANNUR. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, R2 BY SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB, THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.885 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009. O R D E R The judgment dated 22-11-2007 on WP(C).9562/2006 is sought to be reviewed. That judgment was issued without hearing the person, who has filed this review petition, who was a respondent in that matter since she had not appeared and placed counter affidavit. The review petitioner carried an appeal against the said judgment and the Division Bench permitted that appeal to be withdrawn with liberty to move a review petition. Accordingly, this review petition is instituted. On 2-12-2008, I had minuted that after hearing the learned counsel for parties, it was noticed that the controversy had boiled down to the issue as to whether the request of the review petitioner for laying an underground cable RP885/08 -: 2 :- through “EF” pathway in Annexure-I plan is feasible to energize the house belonging to him. The learned standing counsel for the Board was to obtain appropriate instructions. Following the order dated 17-12-2008, the second respondent has filed an affidavit stating, among other things, that an underground cable cannot be laid under the public road, while an overhead line could be drawn and that even as regards the lap “EF”, it is feasible to draw overhead line in so far as it is within the private property. In paragraph 4 of that affidavit, Annexure-R2(a) is referred to and an appropriate estimated cost for drawing the overhead line is determined as below Rs.17,000/-. If the review petitioner opts to have an underground cable in so far as the private way is concerned, he would have to pay more which would be around Rs.27,000/- as stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. Taking these into consideration, the learned counsel for the review petitioner states that his client would be permitted to make a choice between the two on the basis of the RP885/08 -: 3 :- feasibility report of the Assistant Engineer that the entire extent could be overhead line rather than a portion being put as underground cable. The request of the review petitioner in that regard will be considered by the competent authority in the Electricity Board and the appropriate feasible option would be taken and on the review petitioner remitting such amounts as are finally determined by the Board, appropriate action would be taken to energize her premises through the private way "EF", however without disturbing an underground pipe laid by the first respondent crossing the "EF" sector for providing water to her property lying on either side of the pathway "EF". Let the needful be done at the earliest. The review petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/090109