IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6857 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.C.BALAGOPAL, S/O.LATE K.A.CHANDRASEKHARA MENON, NARAYANI VILAS,NEAR I.R.B.PETROL PUMP, K.M.K.JUNCTION,NORTH PARAVUR-683 513. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, O/O.ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE,ERNAKULAM. 2. SHRI.BIJUMON,ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,SUB STATION-SUB DIVISION, KURUMASSERY K.S.E.B.,MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,T.C.DIVISION, K.S.E.B.,ALUVA. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VIDYUTI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. R2 TO R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6857 of 2009-B ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P12. Ext.P12 is an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate granting permission to draw line along the route 'ACD' using high posts. Ext.P12 had been challenged by Sri.K.C.Ramesh in W.P.(C) No.29972/2008 and this court had dismissed the said writ petition. In W.A.No.10/2009 the said judgment stands confirmed. 2. Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that now there is a move not to go by the plan 'ACD'. He took me through Ext.P9 which is submitted by Assistant Executive Engineer indicating the details of the two proposals before the Additional District Magistrate. In the second proposal it is stated as under--'In this proposal the line will get shifted to the eastern boundary of the respondents property. The line will become straight in that portion, will become easy to construct. Only the plot WPC No.6857/2009 -2- marked 2 in the sketch will be get affected by this route. 13 nos. of coconut trees standing along the boundary of this plot will have to be cut and removed. ............' 2. I note that the respondents in Ext.P9 are Sri.K.C.Ramesh who was the petitioner in the writ petition referred earlier and the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the line 'ACD' is to be drawn as straight line. For this he sought to draw from Ext.P9. When permission is granted by the Magistrate under Section 16, the line must be drawn strictly as permitted by the Magistrate. I do not think that there can be any quarrel with that proposition. The writ petition is disposed of as follows. It is made clear that the line can be drawn strictly as permitted vide Ext.P12. To allay the apprehension of the petitioner line will be drawn under the supervision of the 3rd respondent. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS