IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 10182 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRAKASH, KUMBAZHATHEKKETHIL, NADUVILEMURI, NOORANAD. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA, 2. ASST. ESECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, CHARUMOOD, NOORANAD.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. SMT. OMANA, MUNDAKKOTTUPADEETTATHIL, NADUVILEMURI, NOORANAD.P.O., CHARUMOOD, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SMT. KUNJULAKSHMY, MUNDAKKOTTU DO...DO...... ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL FOR R3 SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW FOR R3 MR.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10182/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE DETAILS. P2 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13/01/2009. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.10182 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the 1st respondent exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ordering that line to be drawn to the residential premises of the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner submits that he resides with his family in a plot of land having an extent of 10 cents. It is stated that the premises of the 3rd respondent is situated beyond the South-Eastern corner of his property and that the 3rd respondent applied to the 2nd respondent for supply of electrical energy to her residential premises. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent proposed to draw the line from the electrical post situated towards North of the petitioner's property. When the petitioner realised that if the line is drawn through the alignment as proposed, it will be touching his residential building or passing over the building, he objected to the drawing of the line. WP(C) No.10182/2009 -2- 3. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent applied to the 1st respondent to remove the obstruction offered by the petitioner. The 1st respondent issued notice to the parties, and Ext.P2 is the objection filed by the petitioner. It would appear that on behalf of the 4th respondent, her son in law Sri.Raman entered appearance, and informed the 1st respondent that he had no objection in drawing the line through the alignment suggested by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P3 order, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “The petitioner, Sri.Prakash, the 1st respondent, Sri.Raman, son in law of the 2nd respondent and the beneficiary were present. The 1st respondent reiterated his objections. Sri.Raman, son in law of the 2nd respondent stated that he has no objection in drawing line as per the proposal of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that the proposal submitted is more convenient, less expensive and economically feasible one and no other feasible alternate route is available for effecting electric connection to the house of the beneficiary. Perused the records and it is seen that the proposal of the petitioner is for drawing line through the pathway and it does not cause any harm or inconvenience to the respondents. Since there is no alternate route for giving electric connection to the house of the beneficiary sanction is hereby accorded for the drawal of electric line to the house of the beneficiary under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 as per the proposal of the WP(C) No.10182/2009 -3- petitioner.” It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although it is stated in Ext.P3 that the line shall be drawn through the pathway in between the petitioner's house and the house of Shri.Rahim, there is no pathway as mentioned in Ext.P3, and that if the line is drawn that will be passing over his residential house. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the motive of the petitioner is only to obstruct the usage of the pathway that exists in between the houses of the petitioner and Shri.Rahim. It is stated that if the line is drawn as allowed in Ext.P3, it will not be passing over the petitioner's residential house. 6. A reading of Ext.P3 order shows that the line is permitted to be drawn through a pathway, which according to the 1st respondent is existing in between the houses of the petitioner and his neighbour, Sri.Rahim. Therefore, if line is drawn as allowed in Ext.P3, that alignment cannot be over his house as apprehended. Therefore, it cannot be of any prejudice to the petitioner. However, WP(C) No.10182/2009 -4- apprehension of the petitioner, that if line is drawn as proposed, it can be of prejudice to him is reiterated before me, and he also submitted that, alternate alignments are available and that if the line can be drawn through such alternate alignments, he is willing to bear the additional expenses that are to be incurred by the 2nd respondent. It is also pointed out that there is a pathway on the eastern side of the property of the 3rd respondent, through which without passing through anybody else's property, the line could be drawn from a post, which is already in existence. 7. If as stated by the petitioner, there is an alternate alignment and if the line could be drawn without causing any prejudice to any other third party, so long as the petitioner is willing to bear the additional cost involved for the same, I see no reason why the 2nd respondent should not examine the feasibility of the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. On such examination, if it is found that it is possible to draw the line as suggested, there is also no reason why it should not be done so. 8. Therefore, taking into account the submissions made by both parties, I dispose of the writ petition with the following WP(C) No.10182/2009 -5- directions:- That on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall examine whether it is possible to draw the line to the residential premises of the 3rd respondent by any alternate alignment, without affecting any other private individual, and if it is so possible, the 2nd respondent shall draw the line through such alignment. But, however, any additional expenditure that is required to be incurred, shall be deposited by the petitioner in advance on being notified of the same. It is directed that on examination, if it is not possible to draw the line as suggested by the petitioner through any alternate alignment, it will be open to the 2nd respondent to draw the line through the alignment allowed as per Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent. It is directed that the whole exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg