IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20112 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ BABY.K.J, AGED 58, S/O.K.J. JOSEPH, KALAPPURACKAL PARAPPURATH HOUSE, SOUTH AMBALLOOR.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, AMBALLOOR, MULANTHURUTHY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, THRIPOONITHURA. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 4. JOB J. VILLY, S/O. JOSEPH, VILLIL HOUSE, AMBALLOOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.JOMY GEORGE FOR R4 SRI.LITHIN THOMAS FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 20112 OF 2008 T -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Electric connection was given to the fourth respondent's house through the property of the petitioner about fortytwo years back, on consent. According to petitioner, now the line can be shifted through an alternate route through the Panchayat Road and the private road leading to the house of the fourth respondent. Petitioner relies on Ext.P2 sketch. The fourth respondent by Ext.P4 objected to the alternate proposal stating that it is through his property. This resulted in Ext.P3 by the first respondent stating that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered for the reason of the objection of the consumer. Petitioner relies on Ext.P6 which is the consent for property crossing. In the same, he relies on the agreement expressed by the fourth respondent that in case the electric lines are required to be deviated at a later stage, all the expenses found necessary WPC. 20112/08 T 2 for the alternate route will be paid by him. If by circumstances beyond control, no alternate route is feasible for maintaining supply in his premises, he agreed to determine this agreement and cease to be a consumer of the Kerala Stage Electricity Board. 2. I heard Shri George Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri P.P. Thajudeen, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board and Shri Jomy George, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent besides the learned Government Pleader. 3. Shri Jomy George who got instructions from the fourth respondent submits that his party is not agreeable to the alternate proposal. The proposed route of the petitioner involves drawing of the line across the property of the fourth respondent also. Such a proposal would not attract the jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 17 of the Act. In such circumstances and having regard to the stand of the fourth respondent, it is clear that the stand of the first respondent in issuing Ext.P3 WPC. 20112/08 T 3 cannot be characterised as illegal. The fact that the fourth respondent gave Ext.P6 consent or the phraseology used in the same, cannot clothe the petitioner with a right to demand shifting of the line in law, as contended by him. Law provides for a remedy under Section 17 which can be invoked in circumstances which are indicated therein. If the petitioner seeks to remove the line or the post to another part of his property, certainly that would be one of the matters which would attract the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 17 of the Act. Without prejudice to any such right of the petitioner to invoke Section 17, if he is so advised, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge