IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9027 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ N.K.SEETHALAKSHMY, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN 'LAKSHMY', KARATHOOR KSHETHRAM ROAD PALLIKKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KANNUR. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.S.E.B. SUB DIVISION, THALASSERY. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.B. KODIYERI P.O., THALASSERY. 5. V.HARIDASAN, S/O.NARAYANAN 'SARANYALAYAM', PONNIAM WEST, THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 101 ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9027/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED COUNTER STTEMENT DT 18.2.2006 AND ALSO A PLAN SHOWING THE ALTERNATE PROPOSAL FOR DRAWING OF ELECTRIC LINE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 31.1.2008 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(a): THE SKETCH OF THE ROUTE OF the LINE DRAWN FOR GIVING CONNECTION TO 5TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9027 OF 2008 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that she owns 1 acre of land in R.S.No.136/11 of Thalassery Taluk. It is stated that through her property, laying four electric posts, line has already been drawn to supply electricity to the neighbouring premises. 2. In addition to that when the 5th respondent applied for a power connection, the 4th respondent drew up a proposal to draw the line through the petitioner's property. That was resisted by the petitioner and thereupon the 4th respondent took up the matter before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued notice to the parties and Ext.P1 objection was filed by the petitioner in which an alternate route was also suggested. The site in question was inspected by the 1st respondent on 7/12/2007. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order dated 31/1/2008 was passed. The order was communicated to the petitioner on 14/3/2008. 3. On 17/3/2008, this writ petition was moved and an interim order was obtained by the petitioner. Petitioner contends that despite having conveyed the said order to the respondents, WPC 9027/08 :2 : on 17th itself, they drew the line to the premises of the 5th respondent and energised the same. 4. On the other hand, respondents contend that after receiving Ext.P1 objection from the petitioner, with notice to the parties, the site was inspected in the presence of the petitioner. It is stated that the 1st respondent found that the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioner was not feasible and it was therefore that Ext.P2 order was passed. It is also pointed out that the order was communicated on 14/3/2008, the line was drawn on 15/3/2008 and the same was energised on that day itself. 5. Irrespective of the controversy regarding the date on which the line in question was drawn and energised, from the sketch of the site produced along with the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4, it is seen that if the line is to be drawn through the alternate route proposed by the petitioner, that will cut across five plots of land belonging to different persons. On the other hand, the alignment of the route through which the line is now drawn passes only through the petitioner's property and that too far away from her house. Therefore, comparatively, the alignment chosen in Ext.P2 order, is one causing least WPC 9027/08 :3 : inconvenience. If so, I do not think that this Court will be justified in upsetting Ext.P2 order. 6. Be that as it may, if the petitioner has any genuine grievance against the alignment through which the line is now drawn, it will be open to her to move the authorities for shifting the line, in which case, the said application will be duly considered and orders will be passed in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp