IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34193 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THOMAS KURISINGAL, S/O.GEORGE, KURISINGAL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI. 2. SANTHYAVU, D/O.GEORGE, KURISINGAL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SRI.N.SASI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 024. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006. 3. JESSY SUBHASH, SOORYAPPALLY HOUSE, EDAKOCHI-682 003. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS WPC.NO. 34193/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE AS P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- WP (C) No. 34193 of 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate on 21.11.2011 permitting the second respondent to draw an electricity line through a path way for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residence of the third respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that no reason is stated in Ext.P2 to reject the request made by them to draw the line through the alternate route namely through the rear side of the land belonging to them for which they had given consent. 2. Ext.P1 petition filed by the second respondent before the Additional District Magistrate discloses that the petitioners had objected to the line being drawn through the pathway. The petitioners have no case in the writ petition that the proposal mooted by the second respondent is to draw the line through any portion of the land belonging to them and not through the pathway as stated in Ext.P3. In such circumstances, as the WP(C)No. 34193 of 2011 -2- proposal is to draw the line through a pathway, the existence of which is not disputed by the petitioners, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P2. The petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved if the line is drawn through the path way. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //true copy// PA to Judge.