IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23834 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOMATHY, NELLIMURUPPEL PUTHENVILA, KOODAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.P.SUJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, EZHAMKULAM. 3. SMT.KUNNIKUTTY, PUTHENVILA, NELLIMURUPPEL, KOODAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.23834 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the 4th respondent, exercising his powers under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act. The contention raised is that though an alternate alignment through which the line could be drawn, without passing through the pathway was pointed out, but was not considered by the 4th respondent. Availability of an alternate route is not a matter coming within the scope of enquiry contemplated under Section 16 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act. This position has been upheld by the Full Bench in the judgments in Mamoo V. State of Kerala (1979 KLT 801) and this position has been followed in Kunjulakshmi V. District Magistrate (1986 KLT 1320). Writ Petition therefore fails and is dismissed. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE