IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 15479 of 2008(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MANI, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.UMMINI, KORANDIPALLIL, PERINGALA P.O. KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., KAYAMKULAM. 4. SREENIVASA PILLAI, 'SREEBHAVANAM', PERINGALA P.O., KAYAMKULAM. 5. RAJAN, KORANDIPALLIL KIZHAKKETHIL, PERINGALA P.O., KAYAMKULAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAJASEKHARA PILLAI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN ,SC FOR KSEB R4 BY ADV. SMT.SABINA JAYAN SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.JAWAHAR HAMID THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 15479/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE YEAR 1999-2005. P2 COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 7/5/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A) COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE ROUTE PROPOSED AND THE ALTERNATE ROUTE SUGGESTED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.15479 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated 28th October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of five cents of property comprised in Resurvey No.123/217 of Kayamkulam Village. The fourth respondent is a neighbour of the petitioner. He submitted an application for getting electric connection to his residential building. Based on the application, it was proposed to draw electric line through the property of the petitioner for granting electric connection to the residential building of the fourth respondent. The petitioner objected to the said proposal of the third respondent. Based on the said objection, the third respondent has preferred a complaint before the first respondent in terms of the provisions under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Thereafter, the first respondent passed Ext.P3 order. Before passing the order the first respondent has afforded an opportunity to the petitioner and also to all other persons concerned to prefer their objections. They were also heard in the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that if line is drawn through the proposed route, it would pass over her residential building. But, the respondent/petitioner herein submitted before the first respondent that line could be drawn through the pathway of the proposed WP(C).No.15479/2008 2 consumer i.e., the fourth respondent herein. Thereupon, the petitioner therein/third respondent herein was directed to enquire about the alternate route. Evidently, if the line is drawn through the alternate route, it will entail the drawing of 32.8 metres of overhead line and 21 metres of weather proof wire that too after installing two posts and therefore, it would be more expensive. It is in the said position that it was submitted on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 that the proposed route is the feasible one besides being less expensive. It was after considering all such rival contentions that sanction was accorded for giving electric connection to the fourth respondent's residential building through the proposed route as per Ext.P3. It is challenging the said order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner is against the proposal to draw electric line over her residential building. The sketch produced as Ext.P2 by the petitioner and Ext.R4(a) by the fourth respondent would reveal that a slight deviation from the proposed route would avert drawing of the electric line over the residential building of the petitioner. In fact, by installing a post at the point marked as `P' in Ext.R4(a) line could be drawn from the point `E' to `P' and then to `F' i.e., the residential building belonging to the fourth respondent. Drawing of electric line through the said route would WP(C).No.15479/2008 3 definitely avert necessity to draw line over the residential building of the petitioner for the purpose of granting electric connection to the fourth respondent's residential building. The learned standing counsel for the third respondent submitted that such a deviation could be effected for the purpose of giving electric connection to the residential building of the fourth respondent, provided the petitioner bears the entire expenses for the same. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed to the said course of action. I do not think that the objections raised by the petitioner could be sustained. It is the settled position that an order passed under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act could be interfered with only in case of violation of the principles of natural justice or if it is perverse. A perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that it will not fall under any of those categories warranting interference by this Court. However, in view of the suggestion made at the bar I am satisfied that putting a post at point `P' would avert a situation which entails drawing of line over the residential building of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, Ext.P3 is modified to the extent allowing the third respondent to draw electric line for the purpose of granting electric connection to the fourth respondent through the proposed route by taking a slight deviation by installing a support post at point `P' marked in Ext.R4(a) in the WP(C).No.15479/2008 4 property belonging to the proposed consumer in such a manner to avoid drawing of electric line over the residential building of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS