IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 29728 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHNKUTTY K.S.,AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SANDHYAV, KOCHUMADATHIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O. CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 4. XAVIER, MADATHIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA, APLAPPUZHA. 5. THE ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.T.R.JAGADEESH FOR R4 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO R2. P2 COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO R3. P3 COPY OF OBJECTION PREFERRED TO R5. P4 COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R5. //True Copy// PA to Judge K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29728 OF 2008 L ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. It is an order under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Additional District Magistrate has granted permission for drawing line along the alignment ABCDE that is drawing the line after erecting an additional post in the south western corner of the property of the petitioner and bank of the thodu under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the Board, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there were two proposals. The second proposal is not seen considered. The second proposal would involve the drawing of line over the property of one Sheeba for 4 meters and the rest of the line drawn across the pathway. He further submits that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is proposing to construct a house in the property and he WPC.29728/08 : 2 : cannot construct a house for his daughter, if the line is drawn as allowed. It is submitted by respondent that only 7 meters of OH line will pass through the property of the petitioner. 3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner and Sheeba have opposed both proposals. There is no pleading in the writ petition to show that that is not correct. Whatever that be, even assuming the petitioner did not oppose the second proposal, Smt.Sheeba is not a party in the writ petition. Apparently, 4 meters line would have to be drawn through the property of Sheeba and length of nearly 21 meters of OH line will pass through the so called pathway. Having considered the facts, I would think that this is not a fit case where I should interfere in Article 226. I note the fact that in the course of argument the petitioner had pointed out to the Magistrate another alignment which was also examined. This court will not sit as an appellate court and in such circumstances, I see no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks