IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28279 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KHADEEJA, D/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAKUNNATH HOUSE, KARAPOTTA, PUTHUKODE P.O.,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,KSEB ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SARA UMMA, D/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 40 YEARS PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, KARAPOTTA, PUTHUKODE P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28279 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of the Additional District Magistrate, Palakkad, by which the Additional District Magistrate granted permission to the 1st respondent to draw electric line through a pathway, which lies on the western side of the petitioner's property. The contention of the petitioner is that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent who is the beneficiary of the electric line regarding boundary, in respect of which, O.S.No.55/2009 is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Alathur. The petitioner's case is that line shall not be drawn before that suit is finally decided. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the KSEB also. 3. I am of opinion that the pendency of the dispute and the suit between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are not relevant for the purpose of passing orders under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, by the Additional District Magistrate. Even without consent of the petitioner, it is open to the Additional District Magistrate to give permission to the 1st respondent to draw electric line either through the pathway or even through the petitioner's property, if that is the 2 most feasible route available for drawing the electric line. The petitioner has no case that there is an alternate route available for drawing electric line. Without such a contention I do not think that the petitioner can effectively stall the drawing of electric line or challenge the order of the Additional District Magistrate. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner. 4. However, the petitioner apprehends that in the guise of drawing electric line in accordance with Ext.P3, the 1st respondent may draw line encroaching into the petitioner's property. I make it abundantly clear that the 1st respondent shall draw electric line strictly in accordance with Ext.P3 order of the Additional District Magistrate. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge