IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 12685 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. NANDAKUMAR PAI, NINDASTHALATH HOUSE, KUZHUPPILLY, AYYAMPILLY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682501. 2. MOHANADEVI, W/O. NANDAKUMARA PAI, NINDASTHALATH HOUSE, KUZHUPPILLY, AYYAMPILLY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682501. 3. SHOBHA.P.N., PUTHENMADATHIL HOUSE, CHIRAMEL LANE, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT NINDASTHALATH HOUSE, KUZHUPPILLY AYYAMPILLY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682501. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM-682030. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683514. 3. C.N. RAMACHANDRA PRABHU, S/O. LATE NARAYANA PRABHU,CHENOTH PARAMBIL KUZHUPPILLY,AYYAMPILLY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682501. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 BY ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND FOR R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.V.RAJEEV FOR R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.12685 OF 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1424/2009 OF KUZHUPPILLY SUB REGISTRY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2451 OF 2011 DATED 21.2.2011 OF KUZHUPPILLY SUB REGISTRY. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.12.2010 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.12.2010 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.1.2011 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON 16.4.2011 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2001 IN W.P.(C) No.35166 of 2010 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE AREA SHOWING THE EXISTING LINE. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY A LICENCED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. EXT.R3(A) COPY OF SKETCH. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12685 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate permitting the shifting of an electricity line passing through the property of the third respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Electricity connection to the residence of the petitioners and Sri.N.S.Gopalan who is not a party to this writ petition is presently given from an electricity post, PB No.10, situate on the main road after drawing an over head line across the eastern side of the property belonging to the third respondent. The third respondent applied for shifting of that electricity line. The petitioners objected and the second respondent thereupon moved the Additional District Magistrate for permission to shift the electricity line. On that application, Ext.P6 order was passed by which the Additional District Magistrate permitted the Board to draw the electricity line to the residence of the petitioners along the route ADEC. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the alternate route suggested by the petitioners in Ext.P8 sketch has not been considered. Yet another contention raised is that the third respondent's application for shifting of the electricity W.P.(C) No.12685 of 2011 2 line is without any bona fides. It is also contended that as the proposal to draw the line through the pathway, the ownership of which is vested in Sri.Abdul Shukur, the order is liable to be set aside on the ground that no notice was issued to him. 3. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel on both sides. Shorn of details, the main contention raised by the petitioners is that the electricity line can be drawn through two alternate routes. It is not in dispute that if the line is drawn through one of the said alternate routes, the consent of yet another land owner will have to be obtained. If on the other hand, the line is drawn through the other alternate route suggested by the petitioners, still the electricity line passing through the property of the third respondent will have to be shifted to provide electricity connection to the residence of Sri.N.S.Gopalan who is an existing consumer of the Board. By the order impugned, the Additional District Magistrate has directed to draw the line in such a manner that electricity connection can be given to the residence of the petitioners and of Sri.N.S.Gopalan also. I, therefore, find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioners that the route suggested by the Additional District Magistrate is not technically feasible. 4. I shall now deal with the contention of the petitioners W.P.(C) No.12685 of 2011 3 that they have only a right of way over the pathway through which the line is drawn and therefore the failure to issue notice to the owner of the pathway vitiates the order. The petitioners acquired the right to use the pathway as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 19.11.2009. The document specifically recites that the petitioners will have the right to draw electricity line, telephone cable and water line to their property along the pathway. Since the owner of the land has already permitted the petitioners to draw the electricity line, it is not necessary that his consent should again be sought for the purpose of drawing the electricity line along the pathway. I therefore find no merit in the said contention of the petitioners that failure to issue notice to the owner of the pathway vitiates Ext.P7 order. 5. The petitioner has yet another contention that the pathway is not wide enough to accommodate the electricity line. The document itself recites that the pathway is having a width of 4.5 meters. In other words, it is a 15 feet wide pathway. If, an electric post is erected in the pathway, there will be adequate space left for movement of vehicles including motor cars and lorries. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the pathway will be blocked if the electricity line is drawn along the said pathway. That apart, if the line is drawn through that pathway as suggested by the W.P.(C) No.12685 of 2011 4 Additional District Magistrate, the official respondents can provide electricity connection to the residence of Sri.N.S.Gopalan from one of the posts erected in that pathway. Therefore, the proposed alignment is beneficial to yet another consumer also. 6. The petitioners have yet another contention that if the electricity line is shifted, the petitioners will not be in a position to put up a building on the northern side of their property. As matters now obtain, the electricity lines passes through the northern side of the petitioners land. If the petitioners wish to put up a building on the northern side of their land, they will have to shift the electricity line presently in existence. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioners wish to put up a building on the northern side of the property is not a ground to hold that present proposal is any way objectionable. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12685 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 23rd August, 2011 --------------------------------------