IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29972 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.K.C.RAMESH, S/O.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 45, C-GARDENS, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB STATION SUB DIVISION, KURUMASSERRY, K.S.E.B, MANNAM.P.O, NORTH PARUR. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BAORD, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHY BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 & 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN , R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29972 OF 2008 R ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is an order passed under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act granting permission to the 1st respondent to draw line through the alignment ACD. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for petitioner would point out that the order is passed without jurisdiction. According to her, the approved route would not go through the property of the petitioner and it is at the behest of the 2nd respondent for reasons best known to him that the diversion is made. It is pointed out that the petitioner had raised this objection before the Magistrate and Ext.P6 reveals the stand taken before the Magistrate on the basis of the objection raised by the petitioner. In Ext.P6, it is stated as follows. “ As instructed in the hearing referred above, I am hereby submitting the true copy of WPC.29972/08 : 2 : the approved route map of the proposed 33KV line from Mannom to Alangad. The copy attached is of the portion where the line passing through the respondents property which is lying by the northern side of Aluva Parur road.” The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had suggested an alternate route and the alternate route would only pass along a canal and no prejudice is caused to anybody and it can be drawn as a straight route. The petitioner has produced a sketch also. A statement is filed by the learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 along with Ext.R2(a) sketch. According to the petitioner, Ext.R2(a) is the same as Ext.P5 though learned standing counsel points out that there is some difference. It is the case of the respondents that the original proposal was to draw the line as ABC instead what is accepted as ACD. The alignment ACD is apparently along the eastern boundary of the petitioner's property. According to the respondents, it is not a purayidam but it is a water blocked paddy field. It is the specific case of the respondents that the alternate route suggested by the petitioner, namely drawing line across the WPC.29972/08 : 3 : canal, would have involved the property of others in part. In other words, the segment AE would have to be drawn across the property of others. No doubt, EH could be drawn along the canal. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the rejection of the alternate route or the acceptance of the route ACD instead of ABC could be said to have resulted in manifest injustice. ACD has to be drawn along the eastern boundary. In such circumstances, there does not appear to be any manifest injustice in this case. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that what is stated in the statement is that the position as to the petitioner's property being part of the approved route is not revealed as it is not drawn to scale and the petitioner seeks production of the sketch drawn. Learned Government Pleader points out that even in a case where an approved route is produced, it is not as if the Magistrate is duty bound to accept the approved route. When alternate suggestions are made it can deviate from the original route. It cannot be a matter of jurisdiction that the Magistrate is bound to accept the approved route. Also going by Ext.P6, it would appear that the definite case of the respondents is that the WPC.29972/08 : 4 : original approved route indeed would pass through the property of the petitioner. I do not think that in the facts of this case, I need entertain the challenge on the said ground. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. I make it clear that the line will be drawn as near the eastern boundary along the alignment ACD as is possible. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks