IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19837 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ JOMON JOHN , AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH JOHN RESIDING AT AKATHOTTIRUKKUM KUNNATH HOUSE, THURAVOOR SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLELCTORATE,CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PATTANAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 3. NARAYANI, KAITHAKATTU NIKARTHIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH P.O.,CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 4. N.S.S.KARAYOGAM NO.768, THURAVOOR SOUTH P.O.,CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOPALAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B - R2 SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19837/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner in possession of 2 acres 31 cents of land in Thuravoor. He is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order by which the District Magistrate has granted permission to the Electricity Board to draw a weather proof line for giving service connection to the third respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to Ext.P4, Site Plan, that the property owned by the third respondent is situated on the southern side of the petitioner's property and at the same time, it is on the western side of the property belonging to NSS Karayogam, the fourth respondent. Apparently, going by the order passed by the District Magistrate and the version of the petitioner, third respondent enjoys right of way through the property of the fourth respondent. It is pointed out that there is already a 11 K.V line which traverse the property of the petitioner in the east-west direction and also in the north-south direction. From Ext.P4 it is seen that the said 11 K.V line passes through the property of NSS Karayogam also. Going by Ext.P4, I W.P.(C).19837/2008 2 find that the building owned by the petitioner is in the northern side of the said line. Apparently, alternative proposals were submitted before the District Magistrate. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that the District Magistrate has accepted the proposal which minimizes the burden on the petitioner. In fact, as per the order, half the distance of the line to be drawn will cross the property of the fourth respondent and the remaining half distance will traverse the property belonging to the petitioner. At the same time, post is to be erected in the property belonging to the fourth respondent. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board. 3. From Ext.P3 order, I find that a balanced view has been taken by the District Magistrate. Even going by Ext.P4, Site Plan, there are only three options to draw the electric service connection from the Towers KWE-4 or KWE-5 situated on the northern side of the property belonging to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. One is to draw the line exclusively through the property of the fourth respondent and yet another would be to W.P.(C).19837/2008 3 draw the line exclusively through the property of the petitioner. Third option, as now been accepted by the District Magistrate, is to distribute the burden, in so far as drawing of the line is concerned, equally on the petitioner and the fourth respondent. In my view, the burden so imposed on the petitioner's property may not be cumbersome, taking note of the fact that the petitioner's property has an extend of 2 acres and 31 cents. 4. In the ultimate analysis the District Magistrate is seen to have adopted a balanced view and I do not find any error of jurisdiction or illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the District Magistrate as to warrant interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs