IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20567 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.P.V.SANKARAN, SUJATHA VILASAM VEEDU, PERUMKULAM P.O., PALLICKAL, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691566. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN SRI.ARUN ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, KULAKKADA, KOTTARAKKARA-691566. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, KOTTARAKKARA-691566 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM-691001. 4. SMT.SANTHAMMA, AMBADI, CHEMBAMPOIKA, PALLICKAL, KOTTARAKKARA-691566. 5. KRISHNAKUMAR, LAKSHMIVILASOM, PERUMKULAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA-691566. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 20567/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR THE DRAWING OF ELECTRICITY LINE TO THE PETITIONER'S SMALL HOUSE EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA IN OS NO.389/2005 AND OS NO.403/2005 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2009 OF THE additional DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KOLLAM RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20567 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam on 10.12.2009 permitting respondents 1 and 2 to draw electricity line along the boundary of the land belonging to the fourth respondent for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residence of petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. When the petitioner applied for electricity connection and the Kerala State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) proposed to draw the line through the pathway which passes through the middle of the fourth respondent’s property, the fourth respondent objected to it. The Assistant Executive Engineer thereupon moved the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. There is a dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent as regards the right of way claimed by the petitioner through the fourth respondent’s property. Though the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed and the fourth respondent was restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering with the user of the pathway or from altering its physical features, the dispute is still pending in appeal. When the matter reached the Additional District Magistrate, the fourth respondent submitted that though the proposal by the Board is to draw the line through the disputed pathway, she has no objection to the WPC No.20567/2011 2 line being drawn through the boundary of her property. By the order under challenge in this writ petition the Additional District Magistrate permitted the line to be drawn along the boundary of the fourth respondent’s property,. 3. Apart from the fact that challenge to the order is highly belated there is also the further fact that the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by Ext.P3. By Ext.P3, the Additional District Magistrate permitted respondents 1 and 2 to draw electricity line through the boundary of the fourth respondent’s property. The order does not deprive the petitioner of the right to get electricity connection. The attempt of the petitioner appears to be to strengthen his case in the civil court regarding the disputed pathway. A mere look at Ext.P1 sketch would indicate that the pathway, which the petitioner claims is in existence, divides the property of the fourth respondent into two halves. Such being the situation, I am not persuaded to agree with the contention of the petitioner that he has every right to draw the line through the disputed pathway. The petitioner cannot in my opinion said to be aggrieved as the order does not deprive him of the right to have electricity connection. The challenge to Ext.P3 is, in my opinion, misconceived and is an abuse of the process of the court. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps