IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13732 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SASIKALA BHAI, JOYHUT, KANDALLOOR P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., HARIPPAD. 2. SAVITHRI, PUTHENPARAMBIL, KATTIL MARKET P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.SEEMA FOR R2 R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 13732 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 4th June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the second respondent is no more . Considering the limited nature of the contentions now pressed by the petitioner and the limited extent of relief proposed to be given and further since that the second respondent in the Writ Petition was the original beneficiary of drawing the electric line, which benefit is actually being enjoyed by the Legal heirs, this Court does not find it necessary to issue any direction to implead the legal heirs of the second respondent for the time being, nor do they require to be heard in this regard. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, when the first respondent took steps to draw electric line through the property of the petitioner, cutting across the property into two, virtually causing much hardship and loss to the petitioner, who was actually intending to construct a residential building in the property. It was also specifically contended by the petitioner, as a measure of W.P.(C) No. 13732 OF 2007 2 bonafides in Ground 'H' as follows: “in the event, if it is found that the alternate proposal of the petitioner was not feasible and less onerous , the petitioner is prepared to give consent for drawing the line along the boundary of the property of the petitioner” 3. It was after considering the above stand, that the matter was admitted by this Court on 24.04.2007, passing an interim order as follows: “Elecltric line to be drawn shall be only along the boundary of the petitioner's property and shall not cut across the petitioner's property” 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out the facts and figures and also producing a rough sketch showing the lie and location of the property as Ext. R1(a). The learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that taking note of the grievances of the petitioner, and also the interim order passed by this Court, the line could be drawn from the W.P.(C) No. 13732 OF 2007 3 point (D) to (E) to the destination (C) as given in Ext.R1(a), so as to provide necessary connection to the beneficiary. It is further pointed out that because of the topography of the land , the line cannot be drawn, exactly passing through the boundary of the property, but of course, utmost care will be taken to see that it is drawn in such a manner with close proximity to the boundary to the possible maximum extent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very much agreeable to such a course; more so when the construciton of the building of the petitioner has already been completed. In the above circumstance, the submissions made from either side are recorded and the Writ Petition is closed, making the interim order dated 24.04.2001 absolute, subject to the minor variation, as mentioned above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk