IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19215 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SMT. RADHA, W/O.LATE APPUKKUTTAN AYYAPPANTHATTEL, KOTHALA PO, PAMPADY,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA.L. SMT.SAJITHA.S.DHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYITHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PONKUNNAM 686 506. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 4. SRI.MADHAVAN, AGED 55 YEARS KOCHUKALAYIL HOUSE, KOTHALA PO PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM 686 502. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM SRI.T.R.RAJAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 19215/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.2.2011 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.891/07 DATED 12.4.2007 OF PAMPADY SUB TREASURY EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE FOR DRAWING ELECTRIC LINE RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19215 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 2ndday of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam on 16.2.2011 whereby he permitted the second respondent to draw electricity line along a pathway for the purpose of providing electricity connection to the residence of the fourth respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The main ground of challenge is that Ext.P1 is a cryptic order, that the statement therein that the line is proposed to be drawn through a pathway is not correct and that the line is proposed to be drawn across the petitioner’s property which has no well defined compound wall. It is also stated before the impugned order was passed, the Additional District Magistrate did not inspect the locality or call for a report from the revenue officers. 2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my notice that the beneficiary is Sri.Madavan whereas in paragraph 1 of Ext.P1 order, the beneficiary is named as Sri.M.T.Vijayan and that this itself is a proof positive of the fact that the third respondent has mechanically passed the impugned order. On noticing the disparity in the names, WPC No19215./2011 2 this Court directed the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) to make available the letter dated 18.8.2010 referred to in Ext.P1. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission/hearing today, the learned standing counsel for the Board made available to me a copy of the letter dated 18.8.2010 and the accompanying papers. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the said letter, which is actually a petition under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, that Sri.Madavan Kochukalayil has applied for electricity connection. There is no reference whatsoever to Sri.M.T.Vijayan in that petition. Along with the petition, the second respondent had also enclosed a sketch showing the property belonging to the petitioner, the fourth respondent and others. The second respondent has in the sketch shown the alignment through which electricity line is proposed to be drawn to the residence of the fourth respondent. The sketch discloses that the proposal is to draw the electricity line through a two feet wide pathway which provides access to the residence of the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Apart from challenging the order on the ground that the proposal is to draw the line across the petitioner’s property, the petitioner has not produced any cogent WPC No19215./2011 3 materials in support of the said contention. All that the petitioner has stated is that there is no well defined compound wall separating her property from the pathway. The petitioner has no case that the electricity line can be drawn to the residence of the fourth respondent through any other route. I therefore find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P1. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps