IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21610 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHN.P.,S/O.PATHROSE,PANAYAMKUNNIL PUTHENVEEDU,MYLOM,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSITANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICTIY BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI.PATHROSE,NIRAPPILAKUZHY VEEDU, MYLOM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SMT.ANNAMMA,PUTHEN VEEDU,MYLOM.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SMT.MARIAMMA,NIRAPPILAKUZHY VEEDU, MYLOM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.21610 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Respondents 3 to 5 applied for supply of energy to their resident premises. Petitioner raised his objections. There upon, the 2nd respondent made an application before the first respondent, for removal of the obstruction in terms of the provisions contained under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act. Objections were considered and Ext.P1 order was passed by the first respondent, directing that the line be drawn as was originally proposed. Accordingly, the line was drawn and was energized. 2. Subsequently, petitioner filed Ext.P2 application, praying for shifting of the line. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that the objections raised were the same as those which were raised prior to passing of Ext.P1 order. Ext.P2 was considered and was rejected by Ext.P3 order. It is challenging Ext.P3 order this writ petition is filed. WP(c).No.21610/09 /2/ 3. As already stated, at the time when Ext.P1 order was passed on 21.6.2009, an enquiry was held with notice to the petitioner. During the course of the enquiry the objection raised by the petitioner was that, there was a pathway leading to the property of the 5th respondent and that the line could be drawn through that pathway and thus power supply can be given to the 5th respondent. This objection was considered and overruled. In Ext.P2 application made on 29.6.2009 praying for shifting the line, the feasibility of drawing the line, through the aforesaid pathway was once again urged by the petitioner. This was again considered and is rejected in Ext.P3 for the same reason as those stated in Ext.P1. In my view, once an order in the nature of Ext.P1 is passed, shifting can be sought only for reasons other than those considered and rejected in Ext.P1. In this case no such reason is shown in Ext.P2 request. If that be so, Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent cannot be faulted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.21610/09 /2/