IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 11461 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CHANDRAVALLI,AGED 58,W/O.CHELLAPPAN, THATHANKODU SREEKALA SADANAM,CHITTAR P.O, MANAKKAYAM,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SYAMALA,AGE 53,THATHANKODU SREEKALA SADANAM,CHITTAR P.O,MANAKKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K SRI.O.C.LAIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTIR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KERALA STATE ELECTRIITY BOARD,CHITTAR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHITTAR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. BHASKARAN,S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTI, ALUMTHARAYIL HOUSE,CHITTAR P.O,MANAKKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH FOR R4 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2-3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11461 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, whereby he permitted the Kerala State Electricity Board to draw 19.3 metres of weather proof line from an electricity post already in existence in the land belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of providing electricity connection to the residence of the 4th respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that if a line is drawn through their lands which has an extent of only 4 cents, they will be put to serious prejudice. It is contended that electricity connection can be provided to the residence of the 4th respondent through other alternate routes. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 28.2.2011 the learned Government Pleader made available to me the files leading to Ext.P2. The files disclose that before the impugned order was passed ,the Additional District Magistrate had caused an inspection of the lands belonging to the petitioners, the W.P(C) NO.11461/2010 -:2:- beneficiary and the adjoining lands conducted through the Tahsildar, Ranni Taluk, who submitted a report dated 26.10.2009 to the effect that the most feasible route through which the line can be drawn is the route proposed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, namely from the post standing in the lands belonging to the petitioners. The report submitted by the Tahsildar discloses that there is a pathway passing through the southern side of the lands belonging to the petitioners, that a post is already in existence in the said pathway and that the pathway has been obstructed by the petitioners at the point where the electricity post is in existence and that it has resulted in depriving the beneficiary namely the 4th respondent herein of the right to use the pathway either for drawing the line or for using the pathway for ingress to and egress from the land belonging to the beneficiary. A reading of the report indicates that if a line is drawn from the post already standing in the land belonging to the petitioners for a length of 19.3 metres as suggested by the Electricity Board, the petitioners will not be put to any prejudice. The Tahsildar has reported that if the line is drawn as suggested by the Electricity Board no inconvenience whatsoever will be caused to the petitioners. The Tahsildar also reported that it is the most feasible route. In such circumstances it cannot be said W.P(C) NO.11461/2010 -:3:- that the decision evidenced by Ext.P2 is in any way arbitrary. The Additional District Magistrate has in Ext.P2 order stated that by drawing 19.3 metres weather proof line electricity connection can be provided to the residence of the 4th respondent. The sketch prepared by the Village Officer, Chittar Seethathodu Village, shows that the distance between the electric post standing in the land belonging to the petitioners and the post proposed to be erected in the land belonging to the beneficiary is only 19.3 metres. In such circumstances as the line is proposed to be drawn only for a length of 19.3 metres through one side of the petitioners' land, no inconvenience whatsoever will be caused to the petitioners. I therefore find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P2. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.11461 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 9th March, 2011