IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28500 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.NARAYANAN NAIR, MANATHANATHU HOUSE, VELLOOR P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.J.JACOB, PROPRIETOR, JACOB BAKERS, VELLOOR P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. 2. ALEX THOMAS, GENERAL MANAGER, JACOB BAKERS, VELLOOR P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, MANARCADU, KOTTAYAM. 4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, (DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 28500 OF 2008 P ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Deputy Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam by which the Magistrate has granted permission to draw the electricity line under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act through the property of one Jacob Bakers, Velloor to the property of the 1st respondent. 2. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the order is illegal as the permission has been granted to draw the line across the Panchayath road which is vested with the local authority and therefore, it is in violation of section 10(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act. He also points out section 12 of the Act and contends that it is open to the Panchayath to grant permission and impose conditions as it WPC.28500/08 : 2 : think fit. He also points out section 13 of the Telegraph Act to contend that it is open to the local body to seek a change in the alignment. It is also submitted that it is without getting permission of the Panchayath as required under section 10(c) the line has been drawn. Admittedly, permission has been granted to draw the line over the Panchayath road. There may be some trees overhanging which have to be cut and removed. 3. I am of the view that I should decline the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is not the local body who can possibly complain of violation of section 10(c) of the Act. It is to be noted that the proposal to draw the line is through the road, and there is no proposal to draw the line through the property of the petitioner. Probably the alternate proposal is to draw the line through other persons' properties. It is not as if an order which is shown to be illegal should result in the order being interfered with. Article 226 being discretionary, it is certainly WPC.28500/08 : 3 : open to the court to decline the jurisdiction even if the order is found to be illegal. Apart from that, now the permission has been granted by the Magistrate. If the local body has any objection, it is not for me to pronounce on the same in this judgment. The local body may accept the order in which case, the drawing of line would be perfectly illegal. At any rate, at the instance of the petitioner, I do not think it is necessary to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. No doubt the petitioner has referred to the fact that there are 12 residential buildings. This is not a public interest litigation. The petitioner has to show clear prejudice to himself. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Valsamma Thomas Vs. Additional District Magistrate [1997 (2) KLT 979]. In the facts of the case, having regard to the fact that the proposed line passes through the Panchayath road, I do not think sans manifest injustice interference should follow. WPC.28500/08 : 4 : 4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that at any rate, the width of the road is about 8 feet and the line may be drawn through the underground. Learned standing counsel immediately submits that the Board is prepared to accept it if the petitioner pays the cost. The petitioner is not prepared to bear the cost. I am not inclined to direct such a course be adopted. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that when the line is drawn, it should done causing least damage to the petitioner. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE