IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18145 of 2011(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SMT.BEEVI UMMA,W/O.W/O.ADEETH,NECHULLI HOUSE, POTHAKKAL,VETTATHOOR.P.O,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679 325. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM,PIN-675 705. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,K S E B, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN-679 322. 3. USMAN,S/O.MOHAMMED @ KUNHIPPU, PANAMBUZHY HOUSE,POTHAKKAL,VETTATHOOR.P.O, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679 325. 4. SRI.ABOOBACKER HAJI,VENGOOR KALATHIL HOUSE, POTHAKKAL,VETTATHOOR.P.O,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679 325. 5. AYYAPPAN,THARAYIL HOUSE,VETTATHOOR POST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 325. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. ABDUL SALAM R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.P. THAJUDHEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18145/2011 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26/04/2010. P2: COPY OF REPORT DTD. 3/05/2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 10/01/2011. P4: COPY OF REPORT OF THE V.O. BEARING NO.56/2011 DTD. 26/04/2011. P5: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/06/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.18145 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th July, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram on 15.6.2011 is under challenge in this writ petition. By that order the Additional District Magistrate permitted the second respondent to draw electricity line along the route APQR through the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residence of the third respondent herein. 2. When steps were taken to draw electricity line through the petitioner's property for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residence of the third respondent, objections were raised by the petitioner. It appears the fourth respondent also raised objections apprehending that the line will be drawn through his property. The second respondent thereupon filed a petition under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1884 before the first respondent seeking his interference. The second respondent had submitted three proposals before the first W.P(C) NO.18145/2011 -:2:- respondent. The first proposal was to draw the line for a length of 58 metres across the petitioner's property along the route ABC, the second proposal was to draw the line along the route APQR through the boundary of the petitioner's property and the third proposal was to draw the line along the route IJKL along the boundary of the fourth respondent's property. The Additional District Magistrate called for a report from the Village Officer who reported that besides the three routes proposed by the second respondent, the line can also be drawn through the property belonging to the fifth respondent herein and the land belonging to a Madrassa, but he also reported that though the land belonging to the Madrassa does not support any tree growth, there are a large number of trees in the land belonging to the fifth respondent. The first respondent, after considering the various aspects permitted the second respondent to draw the line along the route APQR through the boundary of the lands belonging to the petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P2 sketch and the contents of Ext.P5 order that if the line is drawn along the route APQR through the boundary of the petitioners lands, the construction of the house will not be affected. On the other hand, if the line is drawn through the route ABC the petitioner herself will be affected W.P(C) NO.18145/2011 -:3:- and if the line is drawn through the route IJKL the fourth respondent will be affected. Likewise if the line is drawn through the property of the fifth respondent, a large number of trees will have to be cut. In such circumstances I am satisfied that the challenge to Ext.P5 is without any merit. The Additional District Magistrate has after taking into account various aspects of the matter permitted the second respondent to draw the line along the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner. Apart from stating that the order is arbitrary and illegal, the petitioner has not set out any cogent reason why the line cannot be drawn along the boundary of her land. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.18145 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 5th July, 2011