IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14080 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- HAJIRA.K.E. D/O.K.E.KUNHOYI,AGED 33, HAJIRA MANZIL, POST PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. V.T.MADHAVANUNNI MR. V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 3. NADIRA,D/O.NOT KNOWN, AGED 35 YEARS, VALLIKUNNUPARAMBIL VEEDU, POST PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. K.E.MUHAMMED, S/O.KUNHU HAJI, AGED 50 YEARS, PUTHUKUDI HOUSE, POST PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL R2 BY ADV. MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R3 ADV. MR.K. MOHANAKANNAN MS. A.R.PRAVITHA MS. D.S.THUSHARA R4 MR. BINOY VASUDEVAN MS. P.G.BABITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 14080 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 13.1.2008 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4.7.2009 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDATED EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4.1.2010 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO. 1527/2010 DATED 21.1.2010 EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.4.2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : 3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT. R3 (a) : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT ON 14.9.2007 EXT. R3 (b) : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF KUNHAPPU ON 18.7.2005 EXT. R3(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT. R4 (a) : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 14080 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 11th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P6 order passed by the first respondent the Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode, whereby the route suggested by the KSEB to draw electric line through the pathway leading to the property of the 3rd respondent, so as to give electric connection to the said respondent has been approved, giving necessary direction to the Board as above. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the route suggested by the Board and approved by the first respondent is actually crossing though the property (front side of the residential building) of the petitioner and the said order has been passed without taking note of the 'alternative route' suggested by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner does not have any objection at all, to draw line through the 'rear side' of the building, and in spite of the necessity to have 3 posts, if the route proposed by the KSEB is to be accepted, only 'one post' will be required if the line is drawn through the alternate route. It is further stated that the line could be drawn from the existing post situated in the corner of the property of the 4th respondent and that the 4th respondent does not have any objection to provide such connection to the building of the 3rd respondent. W.P. (C) No. 14080 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The sequence of events shows that, the dispute arose 3 - 4 years back and after raising objections, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 1527 of 2010 challenging the earlier order passed by the ADM (Ext.P4). After considering the facts and circumstances, this Court directed the matter to be reconsidered, particularly with reference to the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the matter considered by the first respondent, conducted a spot inspection and passed Ext.P6 order approving the route proposed by the KSEB, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. The respondents 1, 3 and 4 have filed separate counter affidavits. First respondent has filed the counter affidavit seeking to sustain Ext.P6 order pointing out 'plus' and 'minus' points in relation to the contentions raised. The third respondent, who is the beneficiary, contends that there absolutely no locus standi for the petitioner to have filed the Writ Petition, as the line now proposed to be drawn is through the 'pathway' leading to the property of the 3rd respondent himself. The existence of the pathway is very much discernible from the title deed and site plan produced and marked as Exts.R3(a), (b) and (c). The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that, there is no case for the petitioner that the said respondent is not entitled to have the right of W.P. (C) No. 14080 of 2010 : 3 : pathway, which on the other hand is rather conceded as given in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition referring to the existence of the pathway. It is also pointed out that, no civil suit is pending with regard to the rights and liberties of the parties concerned over the pathway. 5. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit, that the averment made in the Writ Petition that the 4th respondent has no objection with regard to the 'alternate route' suggested by the petitioner, by drawing the electric line from the post situated in the corner of the property of the 4th respondent is not correct. Reference is also made to Ext. R4(a) statement of objections preferred before the concerned authority, having sent the same by registered post. The learned counsel submits that, when there is a clear cut pathway leading to the property of the 3rd respondent, there arises no question causing the line to be drawn through the property of somebody else, nor does it require any concession from the part of the petitioner, to draw the line. 7. Taking note of the rival pleadings as above, the very existence of the 'pathway' leading to the property of the 3rd respondent, through which the proposed line is intended to be drawn, cannot be a matter dispute. This being the position, the submissions made from the part of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to draw the line through W.P. (C) No. 14080 of 2010 : 4 : the 'alternate route' suggested by her i.e. through the rear side of the residential building involving lesser cost and further that the petitioner is ready and willing to have ignore the compensation to be paid in respect of the cutting of trees do not deserve much consideration. This is more so, in view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent that the requisite cost has been satisfied by the 3rd respondent years back; that the original application was submitted by the father of the 3rd respondent and subsequently the same was changed to the name of the 3rd respondent and that the 3rd respondent is still made to wait for availing the electric supply 8. In the above circumstances, the challenge raised against Ext.P6 order does not hold any water at all. The Writ Petition is devoid of any element of merit or bona fides. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd