IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29384 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RATHNAM K. S/O. LATE KESAVAN, VARIYATHKADU,NALLEPPILLY POST PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. GANGADHARAN R S/O. LATE RAMANKUTTY, DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PALAKKAD. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUTH BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CHITTUR. 4. P.J.REJI S/O.JOHNY, VARIYATHUKADU, NALLEPPILLY POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PADATHU VEETTIL, PADINJARE ANGADI, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 & 3 SRI.MATHEW SKARIA FOR R4 SRI.K.J.JOSEMON FOR R4 SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 29384 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are owners of a property, through which the 3rd respondent seeks to draw electricity lines for giving electricity connection to the 4th respondent. Since the petitioners objected to the same, the 3rd respondent approached the 1st respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. By Ext.P4, the 1st respondent granted permission to the 3rd respondent to draw electricity lines through the petitioners' properties to give electricity connection to the 4th respondent. That order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners' contention is that the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners have not been properly considered by the 1st respondent. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Electricity Board submits that the proposal to draw electric line is through paddy fields belonging to the petitioners and that too along the “nadavarampu” of the paddy fields. Of course, this is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. But it is not disputed before me by the petitioners that the line is proposed to be drawn through a paddy field. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he has applied for electricity connection purely for agricultural 2 purposes. He points out that if the line is to be drawn along the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners, he would have to shell out more than Rs.1 lakhs since the alternate routes are very lengthy. He would submit that if he has to incur huge expenses, then the very purpose of electricity connection would itself be defeated. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. From Ext.P4 order I find that the 1st respondent had in fact considered all the alternate routes suggested by the petitioners also. I have no reason to hold that the 1st respondent has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 16(1) improperly or wrongly in any manner. I do not think that there is much inconvenience to the petitioners in drawing lines through the properties in question which are admittedly paddy fields. The petitioners have not produced any material to show that the lines are not being drawn through a “nadavarampu” as contended by the 3rd respondent. Considering all the routes he came to the conclusion that the route proposed by the 3rd respondent is the most feasible one. In such circumstances, I do find any infirmity in Ext.P4 order. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3