`` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16453 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- NARAYANI, W/O.LATE KRISHNAN, THEKKEKALAM KANNIMARI POST, PATTANCHERRY, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.. 3. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAOURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. SMT. PONNUKUTTY, W/O.LATE KESAVAN, PATTIKULAM, KANNIKARI POST, PATTACHERRY, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 16453/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2008 PASSED BY RESPAONDENT NO.1. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 16453 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is an order passed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act permitting the drawal of line along the common pathway for giving connection to the party respondent. 2. I heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. It is reported by counsel appearing for the party respondent and counsel appearing for the Board that the line is proposed to be drawn only along the pathway. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the petitioner herself has been given connection from the very same post standing in the pathway. There is no specific averment in the writ petition that the line is to be drawn across the property of the petitioner in any way. In the light of the fact the line is only being drawn through the pathway, it cannot be said that there is such miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition fails. But it is made clear that the line will be drawn as proposed along the pathway and will not go over the property of the petitioner. Subject to the same, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb