IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 3523 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NANGELI THANKACHI, KOCHUKUMBOLIL, GOVINDA MUTTOM,KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN SRI.SANDHEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.EE.B KAYAMKULAM. 2. SANKARAN SARATH BHAVANAM, GOVINDAMUTTOM, KAYAMKULAM. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR R2 SMT.SURYA SASI FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 3523/2009. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 21-1-2009. EXT.P2 COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH. EXT.P3 ROUGH SKETCH SUGGESTING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.2(a) COPY OF KETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 3523 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property through which the 1st respondent proposes to draw electricity line for giving electricity connection to the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner objected to the same, the 1st respondent approached the 3rd respondent, who passed Ext. P1 order permitting the 1st respondent to draw electricity line as originally proposed through the petitioner's property. The petitioner's contention now is that instead of drawing the line through the middle of the petitioner's property, the line can be drawn along the boundaries of the petitioner's property. 2. This is opposed by respondents 1 and 2. They would submit that for drawing line through the boundaries of the petitioner's property, three additional posts have to be laid, which would be more expensive than the original route. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. I am of opinion that additional expenses alone is not the criterion for deciding the route through which electricity lines are to be drawn. What is to be ensured is least convenience to everybody concerned. It is not disputed before me that if electricity line is drawn as originally proposed, it would go across the petitioner's property through the middle. That would certainly be a very serious inconvenience to the petitioner because such drawing of electricity line would divide the petitioner's property into two causing serious inconvenience to the petitioner in the enjoyment of the petitioner's property as one plot. On the other hand, if incurring additional expenses, line can be drawn through the boundaries of the petitioner's property, according to me, that would be the least inconvenient route as contemplated under the Indian Telegraph Act. I am also at a loss to understand why a person who does not derive W.P.C. No. 3523/2009 -: 2 :- any benefit from the electricity line to be drawn through his property should suffer to avoid additional expenses to the beneficiary of the electricity line. 5. Ext. R2(a) is the sketch produced by the 2nd respondent . It shows the proposed route and the alternate route suggested by the petitioner. The proposed route is GHI shown in Ext. R2(a). The alternate route suggested by the petitioner is the route GHJKI shown therein. I am of opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the route GHJKI shown in Ext. R2(a) along the boundaries of the petitioner's property is the route causing least inconvenient to everybody concerned. Therefore, the 1st respondent shall draw the electricity line through that route. Ext. P1 would stand modified as above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/