IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5717 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHERIFA AKBAR, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.AKBAR, KALATHUPADIKKAL HOUSE, KABOOS VILLA, VENGANELLUR, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DT. BY ADVS. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.P.A.ANITHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. 3. ARUMUGHAN, VARNA NIVAS, VENGANELLUR, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DT. 4. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DT. R1 & R4 BY MR. P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB, R3 BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR). R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5717/2008-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEED NO. 1063/87 DTD. 28/06/87. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LYE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER ON 28/03/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/06/07 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.22142/07 DTD. 06/08/07. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. DTD. 05/01/05. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5717 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 is an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate exercising his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for supply of energy to a shed in her property. Originally through a pathway line was drawn to give supply to the petitioner. However, that was objected by a neighboring resident, namely the 3rd respondent. The matter was decided by the ADM accepting the proposal made by the 3rd respondent, and that order was challenged before this Court, and this Court by Ext.P5 judgment directed reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P6 order has been passed directing that the line be drawn through the petitioner’s own property shifting the line. Ext.P6 also mentions that the cost involved for shifting the line already drawn will be borne by the 3rd respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the WP(C) No.5717/2008 -2- line is to be drawn as per the alignment shown in Ext.P6, the line will be cutting across the petitioner's property resulting in diminition of its value. 4. True, if an electric line is passing through the property of a private individual, it will result in the diminition of its value. However, it is to be kept in mind that the line is to be drawn for the petitioner’s own purpose through her own property, necessarily therefore, she has to suffer the prejudice as it is to her ultimate advantage. A reading of Ext.P6 order shows that if the line is to be drawn through the pathway as originally proposed, that will result in the line passing in close proximity to the properties of others in the neighbourhood leading to pruning of agricultural crops. It was taking into account this and also the willingness of the 3rd respondent to reimburse the cost involved that the ADM has passed Ext.P6 order. 5. Having regard to the comparative of the hardships highlighted in the order, and the findings in Ext.P6 order, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the order. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg