IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35131 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.CHANDRAN ALIAS AYYAPPAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, NEDUMANNIL HOUSE, KARAKKURUSSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B., MANNARKKAD. 3. P.C.MOOSA, PUTHUKADICHOLA HOUSE, MUTHUKAD, MANKURISSI, VAZHAMPURAM, KARAKURISSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. DASAN, PALATHULLIYIL HOUSE, MUTHUKAD, MANKURISSI, VAZHAMPURAM, KARAKURISSI, MANNRKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. SREEDEVI, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, THACHANAMKODE HOUSE, VAZHAMPURAM, KARAKURISSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 35131 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property through which the 2nd respondent proposes to draw electricity line for giving electricity connection to the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, a more feasible alternate route is available through which line can be drawn. After considering the contentions of the parties involved, the Additional District Magistrate has passed Ext. P2 order under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telephone Act permitting the 2nd respondent to draw line through the route proposed by him. While doing so, the Additional District Magistrate found that the line is to be drawn through the side of the property of the petitioner and for the same, no trees are to be cut. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 order. 2. Originally, the petitioner contended that if the line is permitted to be drawn through the petitioner's property, several rubber trees of the petitioner are to be cut. Therefore, on 7-12-2009, I passed the following order: “The only contention of the petitioner is that if the line is to be drawn through the route now permitted by the Additional District Magistrate several rubber trees are to be cut. From the order, I find that the Additional District Magistrate has held that no trees need be cut if the line is drawn through the proposed route. Standing counsel for the Electricity Board submits that even if trees are to be cut, the proposed route is the most feasible route. But, he seeks time to obtain instructions as to whether any trees need be cut for drawing line through the proposed route.” 3. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board submitted that no tree of the petitioner would be cut and removed but only branches of rubber trees would be cut. 4. I have heard counsel on both sides. W.P.C. No. 35131/09 -: 2 :- 5. Ext. P 2 order reads thus: “Taking into consideration of all the aspects involved in the case, I have come to the conclusion that there is not much hardship to Sri. N. Chandran, Nedumannil House, Muthukad, Mankurissi, Vazhampuram, Karakurissi, Mannarkkad, Palakkad, the respondent for providing electric connection to the residence of Smt. Sreedevi, the Prospective Consumer by drawing the electrical line through the side of the property of Sri. Chandran, the route proposed as per the sketch, by the the petitioner and it will promote better relationship between the parties. In the circumstances, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E.B., Mannarkad, Palakkad is permitted to exercise the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to draw the electric line through the side of the property of Sri. Chandran, the route proposed and topo sketch filed by the petitioner for providing the electric connection to the residence of Smt. Sreedevi, W/o. Radhakrishnan, Thachanamkode House, Vazhampuram, Karakurissi, Mannarkkad, Palakkad the Prospective Consumer for domestic purpose. The petitioner should ensure minimum inconvenience to the respondent while drawing the electric line. If any loss has been caused to the respondent by drawing the line, the respondent can move before the appropriate authority under Section 16(4) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.” I am of opinion that the Additional District Magistrate has considered every aspect of the matter and has given cogent reasons for accepting the route suggested by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the said order so as to interfere with the same in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.