IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 10645 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.V.V.PYARELAL, SARASWATHAM, MARUTHORVATTAM, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, CHERTHALA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THANKAMMA K.V., KATTUNILATH, VELORVATTOM, C.M.C.26. ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN FOR R4 SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 10645 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT This matter relates to a proceedings under Section 16(1) of Telegraph Act. The petitioner challenges the order of the Additional District Magistrate. 2. Following different earlier orders, the Electricity Board has placed on record a statement dated 17.2.2009 producing Ext.R2(c) sketch. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electrical Sub Divisional, Cherthala who has prepared Ext.R2(c) is also present. 3. After hearing the parties, I do not find any conflict or controversy as to the correctness of the contents of Ext.R2(c). Therefore the issues could be settled once for all with reference to that sketch. 4. The Board proposed the route `ABC' to provide energy to the fourth respondent, and applicant whose dwelling house is shown as `C' in Ext.R2(c). The Assistant District Magistrate approved that proposal and overruled the objections, however, WPC 10645/2007 2 without stating too many reasons. During the course of this case, the Board has placed a proposal, an alternate one, which is `AEDC'. If that proposal is accepted, the line would go farther to the boundary of the petitioner's property though it may be nearer to the property of one Vijayan, who it appears, would not be disturbed by that alignment. Another alternate route which is suggested by the petitioner and noted by the Assistant Executive Engineer is the second alternate proposal, `XYC'. That route is only 58 metres long, but it calls for a pole in a marshy land, which is water logged and the line has to be drawn where there are other dwelling houses, including that of Pappachan and Mathai. While that aligment may not touch those lands, I do not deem it advisable to compel the Board to draw the line through alignment `XYC' because of the proximity of the dwelling house to the marshy land and the chances of very many unfortunate situations, which may arise in the case of any eventuality. 5. Within the parameters of the jurisdiction under Article 226, all that needs to be done, as of now, is to provide the petitioner the opportunity to have the line refixed as `AEDC'. It also needs to be noticed that Ext.P3 order was issued by WPC 10645/2007 3 Additional District Magistrate on 8.3.2007 and the fourth respondent had applied for energy in 2005. Therefore even without making any remand of the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, in view of the fact situation noticed above, it is ordered that the decision of the Additional District Magistrate will stand modulated by what is stated herein and the alignment will be `AEDC'. The Kerala State Electricity Board authorities will take immediate action to provide the said alignment to ensure prompt supply of energy to the fourth respondent. Writ petition ordered accordingly. Let line be energised at the earliest from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/9/3